Dew,
Why do you need to lie? I especially liked when you attacked me for what somebody else posted about the number of shares GTCB could issue. I wrote
<I wasn't saying that DNA and Roche connection was identical to LFB-GTCB. I was pointing out that LFB can't make any offer they like and force GTCB shareholders to accept. LFB can make any offer they like but GTCB shareholders would have to vote on it.>
You responded with
<This is yet another distortion of the truth that omits key factual details.
If LFB can acquire 90% or more of GTC’s equity via a tender offer, LFB can execute a “short-form merger” that becomes a fait accompli with NO REQUIREMENT FOR A SHAREHOLDER VOTE. Inasmuch as LFB’s equity stake on a fully-diluted basis will be close to 70% when the latest financing transaction closes, LFB should be able to reach the 90% threshold by offering a small premium to the market price at the time of the tender offer.>
We are talking about what can happen right now. If and when LFB gets to the 90% threshold, they can make their move. Maybe LFB will try and get to the 90% threshold but they aren't there yet, so why are you saying I have distorted facts, when those conditions haven't been reached. You are distorting the truth by accusing me of distorting the truth by asserting what will happen when certain conditions will be reached but that don't yet exist.
How can you accuse me of distorting facts when what you are talking about isn't reality but your protections as to what may happen. I can imagine what you would say if I projected that Lundbeck will come in as GTCB's white night by buy GTCB's European rights to ATRYN and GTCB's USA rights for factor VIIa to prevent further dilution and to keep LFB from gaining a higher stake than they have now then use that to attack you. If LFB management does management to force a non-voting takeover, I will take their money and move on. Perhaps I will have done better that you did when you bailed, perhaps not.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
