Re: So.....? ... just takes one...
posted on
Oct 16, 2017 11:24AM
Golf, I did a hypothetical simulation of the float and ownership % if Hepa had paid $5 to raise $87,000,000. My Internet is unstable and when I went to post it crashed.
I'm not going to repost it but as I recal it would have taken the float to 132,000,000 and Hepa would own 24.2%...still dominant but far less than the power of 43% ownership.
Why did I choose $5.00. It is purely hypothetical of course but I reasoned since Hepa first bought in there have been many very significant and positive developments in the understanding of the MOA of apabetalone as well as it's safety profile.
Therefore, to your point why did Don give Hepa 43% ownership for a stop gap solution? My guesses are as follows;
One of things rolling around in my mind is how 43% ownership by Hepa will impact the LOI negotiation process? This will surely depend on who Don is negotiating with, the stucture of the deal, etc.
From my perspective, depending on what happens between now and the AGM, I would not be surprised at all to see a change on the board of directors with Hepa increasing it's # of directors.
I truly appreciate the optimistic posters. I realize my posts may seem quite critical but the game on the business side has just changed in a dramatic way! There are many unknowns at this stage.
Even with my critical posts I have retained my shares based on the science. If FA passes I hope that retail investors will be treated fairly, although Don does not seem to respect the retail investors. If the FA fails I still believe that there is still very significant IP in this company that could lead to break through science in the future.
Let's hope for a positive FA and a licensing deal that includes a very significant share position to counter balance Hepa.
DYODD GLTA
Toinv