To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (3974 ) 11/6/2001 9:08:20 AM From: DanZ Read Replies (2) | Respond to I didn't say that Swedish Match didn't want out of the joint venture. I said that it was mutually agreeable. You made it sound like Gum Tech didn't want out and it was only Swedish Match that wanted out. Gum Tech could have fulfilled its obligation to the joint venture, but Swedish Match apparently doesn't want Wrigley to make the gum. Notice that Swedish Match said that there are other players in the market that they can team with. Doesn't that alone tell you that they don't have the capability to formulate and manufacture gum? You belittle everything about Gum Tech when in reality they possess a capability that Swedish Match found attractive. It isn't simply putting machines in a room to make gum. They wanted Gum Tech primarily for their R&D. If you would give Gum Tech credit where credit is due I wouldn't have a problem with your differing opinion. You simply try to discredit this company in every way possible and your bias does not foster an open discussion.after Gum Tech sold their gum manufacturing? They would have been content riding Gum Tech along for another year or whatever until they were ready to launch a product. As a Gum Tech Shareholder, I am glad that they sold the gum business and are getting rid of Swedish Match. That company hasn't fulfilled its goals to the joint venture and has hurt Gum Tech's stock price. I say good riddance to them and look forward to the new partner who I believe will be more motivated to launch a product. The nicotine gum market is still growing about 20% per year and is nearly $1 billion in sales strong. When and if Gum Tech announces that they are launching a product, and if they own a similar proportion of the business as they did with Swedish Match, this stock will be back in the 20s in no time.
