I'm proud to announce that Ozbiota has now gained the allegiance of 1% of the total shares on issue of BOTA.
Thank you for taking the time and effort. It is amazing to read how much in common you have with each other.
Should I call the SEC?
Get the message out there and let's recruit to the aim of 1 million shares, which is over 3% of the company.
I intend to invite members to a dinner meeting in the near future. It will be in Melbourne, and I hope most of you can make it.
Neuraminidase inhibitor treatment of influenza is one of our country's greatest scientific inventions. It's impact is greater than the cochlear implant or the HPV vaccine: two wonderful inventions that have created health benefits yet those two inventions have also generated significant returns for the shareholders who invested capital to create, test and market them.
I think that's at the hub of small Australian shareholders' anger and frustration in BOTA.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
So, in order to focus on company communication, or lack of it, lets devise a list: the top ten questions we'd like answered by Biota management. Here's 9 to start:
1. Vapendavir has had over 20 million dollars spent on its development. You are still considering its future. Why? What are the issues that you need to clarify to determine the next step? Who is considering those issues? How long will considering those issues take? Have you had any interest in this compound? Why was a Phase 2b trial initiated? How much longer does this compound have on its patent?
2. What are the legacy issues in using Nabi as the vehicle for a reverse takeover and listing vehicle?
3. You are reassembling your team at Inhibitex. We can understand the advantages in doing that, but what are the disadvantages?
4.Why do you have so many Board members?
5. You have a significant number of Australian shareholders. Is that now irrelevant? Does that influence your communication strategy? Will you hold shareholder and analyst meetings in Australia? Is dual listing on the ASX a possibility to assist current and potential shareholders to manage their holdings from Australia?
6. The arrangement with Daiichi Sankyo for Rest of World rights and royalties to lananimavir is opaque, and may be negatively affecting the market's view and valuation of the company. When will this be finalised? Why would the company delay finalising this arrangement given the impact on the company's valuation?
7. It was the previous management's intention to take LANI to market in the ROW. What is your view?
8. There has been no positive reaction from the market to the NASDAQ listing and recent strategic review. The BOTA shareprice is poor, while the US market is reaching new highs. Why? What would be the drivers of shareprice improvement in BOTA? What would US institutional investors seek in a biotech like BOTA before investing?
1. Vapendavir has had over 20 million dollars spent on its development. You are still considering its future. Why? What are the issues that you need to clarify to determine the next step? Who is considering those issues? How long will considering those issues take? Have you had any interest in this compound? Why was a Phase 2b trial initiated? How much longer does this compound have on its patent?
2. What are the legacy issues in using Nabi as the vehicle for a reverse takeover and listing vehicle?
3. You are reassembling your team at Inhibitex. We can understand the advantages in doing that, but what are the disadvantages?
4.Why do you have so many Board members?
5. You have a significant number of Australian shareholders. Is that now irrelevant? Does that influence your communication strategy? Will you hold shareholder and analyst meetings in Australia? Is dual listing on the ASX a possibility to assist current and potential shareholders to manage their holdings from Australia?
6. The arrangement with Daiichi Sankyo for Rest of World rights and royalties to lananimavir is opaque, and may be negatively affecting the market's view and valuation of the company. When will this be finalised? Why would the company delay finalising this arrangement given the impact on the company's valuation?
7. It was the previous management's intention to take LANI to market in the ROW. What is your view?
8. There has been no positive reaction from the market to the NASDAQ listing and recent strategic review. The BOTA shareprice is poor, while the US market is reaching new highs. Why? What would be the drivers of shareprice improvement in BOTA? What would US institutional investors seek in a biotech like BOTA before investing?
Sunday, 26 May 2013
A brief post: well, we've reached 6 figure support in a relatively short time.
Our new target will be 1 million shares associated with this site.
Thanks for your responses. Over the next couple of posts, we'll go through those and any news that emerges. Responses have alerted me to the initiation of some coverage of Biota by US based analysts, but we need to look at the quality of those firms and not just what they are saying. I can recall many positive analyst research reports in the past, which only hurt the company when the company's actions didn't match what it told the analysts. For example, some analysts were clearly expecting a ROW lananinavir deal many years ago.
Ozbiotans are happy for an outlet for their ideas and frustrations. In fact, the lack of communication and transparency from this company ranks highly among the issues raised with me so we'll make that a priority. Other issues are the plentiful.
I'll also allow comments on the site as a trial: please keep it clean, legal and identifiable. If it works, it stays.
The share price has seen some significant selling pressure with volumes on certain days over the week, with recovery on smaller volumes.
Our new target will be 1 million shares associated with this site.
Thanks for your responses. Over the next couple of posts, we'll go through those and any news that emerges. Responses have alerted me to the initiation of some coverage of Biota by US based analysts, but we need to look at the quality of those firms and not just what they are saying. I can recall many positive analyst research reports in the past, which only hurt the company when the company's actions didn't match what it told the analysts. For example, some analysts were clearly expecting a ROW lananinavir deal many years ago.
Ozbiotans are happy for an outlet for their ideas and frustrations. In fact, the lack of communication and transparency from this company ranks highly among the issues raised with me so we'll make that a priority. Other issues are the plentiful.
I'll also allow comments on the site as a trial: please keep it clean, legal and identifiable. If it works, it stays.
The share price has seen some significant selling pressure with volumes on certain days over the week, with recovery on smaller volumes.
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Welcome.
This site is intended for Australian based shareholders of Biota Pharmaceuticals. Biota was an Australian based company for 20 years until it delisted from the ASX in November 2012 to list on Nasdaq through a reverse takeover of a cashbox shell company called Nabi Biopharmaceuticals.
Biota is now based in Atlanta, Georgia.
But most of Biota's shareholders are Australian, and most are small holders.
This site is to encourage those shareholders to form a network to exchange information and ideas.
Well, partly. It is also intended to allow shareholders to unite as a proxy voting block to gain better representation and influence.
Biota has a great Australian invention but a terrible corporate track record. In its move to the United States, its shareprice was ravaged by Nabi shareholders and by traders. The result is a company with a capitalisation little more than its cash in the bank. The company has ignored its shareholders, primarily because it can.
The destruction in capital wealth has occurred with the apparent co-operation of the 2 large shareholders who are represented on the Board. They have not been able or willing to reverse this shareholder wealth reduction even though it would seem to be in their interests to do so.
Further to its strategic review, the Board has changed 2 directors, and both new directors are US based executives. From all appearances, the new CEO has recruited his old Inhibitex team. Nothing that has occurred since the announcement of the move to the US has improved the situation for shareholders.
This leaves the average small Australian shareholder further distant from the aims, performance and outcomes of the company.
So, what to do. I have some form to disclose.
In 2008 following Biota's withdrawal from litigation against GSK, foregoing a 100 million prior offer of settlement, I ran as an independent for the Board in protest at the actions of the company.
In the course of that episode, the then Chairman wrote to shareholders informing them that undirected Chairman proxies would be voted in favour of my election. 3 days prior to the AGM, he announced to the ASX that he was reversing his direction to vote against me. This gave the average shareholder little chance to change their vote.
The action spoke to the qualities of the then Chairman and some members of the Board, and offered a glimpse into the kind of people running the company, and for whom it was run.
I lost : 6 million votes weren't enough.The Chairman and another Director left soon after.
In general, shareholder activism is frowned upon: it seems to be more acceptable to quietly lose to a group of strangers. And we all have day jobs. But, the situation of the Biota shareholder is a little different.
I would like to encourage you to join this group and think about contributing your shareholding to a voting block.
Where this goes depends on the response. Perhaps the best we'll do is meet now and then. Perhaps we'll hold 10% of the company.
The email address dedicated to this site is
ozbiotaAT gmail.com
Maybe we should start with examining a position on:
dual listing
the number of Board members
Regards
Michael Montalto
This site is intended for Australian based shareholders of Biota Pharmaceuticals. Biota was an Australian based company for 20 years until it delisted from the ASX in November 2012 to list on Nasdaq through a reverse takeover of a cashbox shell company called Nabi Biopharmaceuticals.
Biota is now based in Atlanta, Georgia.
But most of Biota's shareholders are Australian, and most are small holders.
This site is to encourage those shareholders to form a network to exchange information and ideas.
Well, partly. It is also intended to allow shareholders to unite as a proxy voting block to gain better representation and influence.
Biota has a great Australian invention but a terrible corporate track record. In its move to the United States, its shareprice was ravaged by Nabi shareholders and by traders. The result is a company with a capitalisation little more than its cash in the bank. The company has ignored its shareholders, primarily because it can.
The destruction in capital wealth has occurred with the apparent co-operation of the 2 large shareholders who are represented on the Board. They have not been able or willing to reverse this shareholder wealth reduction even though it would seem to be in their interests to do so.
Further to its strategic review, the Board has changed 2 directors, and both new directors are US based executives. From all appearances, the new CEO has recruited his old Inhibitex team. Nothing that has occurred since the announcement of the move to the US has improved the situation for shareholders.
This leaves the average small Australian shareholder further distant from the aims, performance and outcomes of the company.
So, what to do. I have some form to disclose.
In 2008 following Biota's withdrawal from litigation against GSK, foregoing a 100 million prior offer of settlement, I ran as an independent for the Board in protest at the actions of the company.
In the course of that episode, the then Chairman wrote to shareholders informing them that undirected Chairman proxies would be voted in favour of my election. 3 days prior to the AGM, he announced to the ASX that he was reversing his direction to vote against me. This gave the average shareholder little chance to change their vote.
The action spoke to the qualities of the then Chairman and some members of the Board, and offered a glimpse into the kind of people running the company, and for whom it was run.
I lost : 6 million votes weren't enough.The Chairman and another Director left soon after.
In general, shareholder activism is frowned upon: it seems to be more acceptable to quietly lose to a group of strangers. And we all have day jobs. But, the situation of the Biota shareholder is a little different.
I would like to encourage you to join this group and think about contributing your shareholding to a voting block.
Where this goes depends on the response. Perhaps the best we'll do is meet now and then. Perhaps we'll hold 10% of the company.
The email address dedicated to this site is
ozbiota
Maybe we should start with examining a position on:
dual listing
the number of Board members
Regards
Michael Montalto
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)