Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: twentyfirstcenturyfox who wrote (13377)	3/31/2004 10:49:48 AM
From: Cal Gary	Respond to of 14101

csa-acvm.ca For Immediate Release March 29, 2004 New rules promote investor confidence, change issuers’ disclosure and governance practices Calgary – A series of new rules that promote investor confidence and significantly change a number of the disclosure and governance practices of most Canadian public companies come into force in most Canadian jurisdictions tomorrow, March 30, 2004. The rules will apply to almost all reporting issuers other than investment funds. “The net result of these rules is that investors will receive more consistent disclosure on a more timely basis and they can be more confident in the quality of the information they receive,” said Steve Sibold, Chair of the CSA and of the Alberta Securities Commission. He added that “international investors can remain confident that Canada’s disclosure and governance standards continue to be as stringent as those anywhere in the world.” One of the new rules harmonizes continuous disclosure requirements across Canada for the first time and introduces a number of changes, including shorter filing deadlines for financial statements. Another rule will require CEOs and CFOs to certify their financial disclosure. There is also an instrument establishing the responsibilities and composition of audit committees and yet another requiring that an issuer’s auditors participate in the oversight program of the Canadian Public Accountability Board. The rules that come into force include: National Instrument 51-102 Continuous Disclosure Obligations National Instrument 52-107 Acceptable Accounting Principles, Auditing Standards and Reporting Currency National Instrument 52-108 Auditor Oversight Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers’ Annual and Interim Filings (MI 52-109) Multilateral Instrument 52-110 Audit Committees (MI 52-110) National Instrument 71-102 Continuous Disclosure and Other Exemptions Relating to Foreign Issuers MI 52-109 and MI 52-110 have not been adopted by the British Columbia Securities Commission. To help reporting issuers get ready for the changes, the Ontario Securities Commission has prepared an internet-based presentation summarizing the new requirements. The webcast, first of its kind offered by the OSC, is available at www.osc.gov.on.ca/webcast. A detailed brochure comparing the new continuous disclosure requirements to the existing ones is available at the same location. The CSA is a council of the 13 securities regulators of Canada's provinces and territories. It coordinates and harmonizes regulation for the Canadian capital markets. More information is available at the CSA website, www.csa-acvm.ca. For Media Inquiries: Joni Delaurier Alberta Securities Commission 403-297-4481 www.albertasecurities.com Andrew Poon B.C. Securities Commission 604-899-6880 1-800-373-6393 (B.C. & Alberta only) www.bcsc.bc.ca Eric Pelletier Ontario Securities Commission 416-595-8913 www.osc.gov.on.ca Barbara Timmins Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec 514-940-2176 1-800-361-5072 (Québec only) www.cvmq.com

To: twentyfirstcenturyfox who wrote (13377)	4/1/2004 10:22:30 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Hi fox - "...would not the 2mill (or whatever amount is being committed to these additional trials) be better spent taking Fungoff to the next and, I would assume, higher trial level. I know this is a bit of crude logic, but a higher trial level should mean higher profile drug - hence making it a more leveragable asset?" Good questions. I'm not sure I can give a "correct" answer, but maybe I can give one that makes some sense. Most of us who invested in Dimethaid Research invested in a company that had a number of product possibilities. For years, we were lead to believe all these were in active development. Beyond Pennsaid, they included Fungoff, and a number of possible areas for WF10. The importance of the other therapeutics went beyond their medical application to the question of distributing risk. Put it another way: few investors would have put their money into a company that was staking everything on the success of one drug. In the time that I've held DMX (3 years) the company never let on, until last fall, that R&D had stopped. In that time, after a long series of Acqua extensions, we subsequently saw the high-priced Bahamian financing, the unsuccessful Rights Offering, and then the Paradigm equity financing, disguised as "conventional" with a still-unseen "analysts's report" to accompany the costly premium. Concurrent with these distributions was borrowing and debt at obscene rates, in an era of historically low interest rates. It was at that point that management's contrived stories about financing fell apart, and we began to understand that we had been flimflammed: Dimethaid used equity financing, and ruinous borrowing because it had no choice. For years, RK had told us that she used equity financing as an option. Now we understood it was no option at all: The Street wouldn't give Dimethaid Research a nickel. So, she's been stringing us a line since January 2000. That's when she went to equity financing, instead of going back to The Street for a conventional financing, as she once did - to the tune of $30 million. www2.cdn-news.com Since then, institutional support has declined to nothing, from 40%. DMX was dropped from the TSX Index in September 2002. So for 4 years, Dimethaid has been cut off from conventional financing. Did management tell us that? No. Did management want us to know? Judging by the elaborate cover story, by which they tried to disguise the Paradigm financing, no. Management did not want investors to know. Who knew? The Street. How do we know they knew? By their absence. By the absence of analysts. By the absence of financing. By the absence of funds. By the absence of institutional ownership. What caused this rift between The Street and Dimethaid management? Ah, that's the question, and the answer is out there. But for we unfortunate investors, time has finally made the truth clear. Management's attempts to disguise the Paradigm financing only confirm the reality. For 4 years, Dimethaid has been living on a shoestring, and management's statements about a promising future have been a cover job on the ugly truth. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So back to your question: why not put R&D money into Fungoff, thus giving the company a more diverse, and less risky product base? I think the answer may lie in the source of the money - but this is only a guess. In a previous post, I said, "Someone gave her money." The source of the money - or the source of payment for the trials - must have linked the funding directly to Pennsaid, and nothing else. We know Dimethaid doesn't have enough money to pay for the trials itself. As you point out, if Dimethaid had money, the obvious and intelligent thing to do would be to get Fungoff (or WF10) moving, to cut risk. The fact that isn't being done can only be ascribed to - (A) Faulty vision of what's in the company's long-term best interests (quite possible) (B) Externally-imposed direction in the best interests of the funding source - ie., we'll give you money, but only to develop Pennsaid some more, because that's what we want. It sort of suggests Solvay, or McNeil - doesn't it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fox, I agree with your analysis - any move that diversifies Dimethaid's product base would be a good one. This move seems to be going in the wrong direction. These are my guesses as to why. Regards, Jim