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: TheBusDriver who wrote (13580)	9/1/2004 3:27:41 PM
From: SofaSpud	Respond to of 14101

Dimethaid's financial position depressed LEONARD ZEHR Dimethaid Research Inc.'s current financial position, "though depressed, is far from insurmountable," the company says in its information circular. The Markham, Ont.-based drug developer, which is fighting a proxy battle with dissident shareholders, warned in June that its latest private sale of $4.2-million of special warrants would keep the company going until about Aug. 31.While the information circular said the company must raise money to support its operations, it didn't disclose any new financing initiatives. Employee salaries have been frozen for the past two years, the company said, but in order to increase revenue, it needs to invest in sales and marketing programs. The company also charged that the dissident's proxy challenge has "interfered with Dimethaid's ability to raise capital, eroding the recent financing offer from $10-million to $4-million." Dimethaid said it had a term sheet offer on May 7 from an investment bank for a private placement to raise $10-million. On May 11, when the dissident's demands were made public, the company said a number of institutional investors backed out of the proposed financing. The company's stock price then declined. "Had it not been for the dissidents' actions, Dimethaid would have been able to complete a much larger financing, with less dilution," the company said. A spokesman for the dissidents said his clients were out of the country and couldn't be reached for comment. Dimethaid also disclosed that director Frederick Keeler, who is the husband of chief executive officer Rebecca Keeler, will not seek re-election at the annual meeting on Sept. 21. Mr. Keeler's presence on the board was one of three issues raised by the dissidents, who claim to have support from shareholders controlling more than 20 per cent of Dimethaid. They have also cited the protracted amount of time Health Canada took to approve the company's Pennsaid pain cream and a British arbitration decision for $2.7-million (U.S.) against Dimethaid for their proxy challenge. The company said "these complaints are insufficient grounds for bowing to such an extreme demand as the replacement of the entire board." In a letter to shareholders, Ms. Keeler also said the dissidents, led by Daniel Chicoine, lack pharmaceutical experience and are "effecting a takeover bid, without making an offer to all shareholders." © 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

To: TheBusDriver who wrote (13580)	9/2/2004 12:04:17 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 14101

This issue is NOT what the MMC will do - or not do. The issue was the perception of significant failures on the part of management. For years, shareholders have been commenting on various aspects of the company's performance that they found unsatisfactory. All of a sudden, after more than 20 pages of verbiage called Management's Circular, that does absolutely NOTHING to correct (or explain) the errors of the past, the MMC is on trial! Amazing. People have completely lost sight of the real issue. Markham must be rolling on the floor in laughter. Management has spun a few meaningless words on paper, some promises that should have been fulfilled long ago, allusions to an alleged financing (with no specifics) that miraculously "appeared" after years of cash starvation and high-cost PIPE financing. Where was this "financing" when we needed it? And of course, we are reassured that financing problems are not "insurmountable" - again, without details. This, courtesy of a news article from a writer on which management posters have heaped endless amounts of scorn. Management's tactics render potential shareholder action - by anybody - very difficult. Now, we read posters who have visibly complained about management day after day, month after month, year after year - who have turned on a potential ally. Whether or not the MMC can mount a campaign is NOT the issue. The issue is the quality of management that has been displayed at Markham. The issue is NOT about promises for the future - we've been listening to those for years. The issue is what we have seen in the past, and whether that gives you enough confidence in management to retain them. What explanation did Markham give of the Provalis arbitration? What details of the arbitrator's decision were released? What more do you know now, than you knew before? Nothing. What information has management provided that leads you to believe its governance of acquisitions has been a success? What statisitcs on the success of Akorn convince you that maybe there really is some expertise at Markham? None. Absolute silence. What about that other acquisition, Oxo Chemie? Has management's self-proclaimed marketing expertise doubled, ot tripled sales of those products? No. "According to Dr. Ray Scraggs, senior pharmaceutical industry analyst with Visiongain, the world market for antifungal medication—topical and systemic—was worth nearly $6 billion US in 2003. Oral antifungals currently dominate this market with a 60-percent market share, leaving a topical target market of $2.4 billion US. This market offers substantial revenue potential for a product with Penecure’s unique advantages. The Company is actively pursuing opportunities for co-development and co-marketing partnerships." sedar.com Are we supposed to believe that JnJ wouldn't want a piece of that? Are we supposed to believe that a viable relationship with McNeil wouldn't further extend to Penecure? Especially when it uses the same delivery platform as Pennsaid? Markham has trotted out the McNeil Standstill Agreement regularly, right up to the last Prospectus in June... "In May 1999, the Company entered into a standstill agreement with McNeil Consumer Healthcare (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) (“McNeil”) for the United States distribution rights to Pennsaid®. In exchange for payment of US$2 million, Dimethaid agreed to exclusively negotiate the United States distribution rights with McNeil. There can be no assurance the Company’s standstill agreement with McNeil will result in a partnership on terms acceptable to the Company if Pennsaid® is approved in the United States." sedar.com "No assurance", indeed. Now, when Dimethaid *needs* a partner for Penecure, where's McNeil? Where's the explanation of what happened to the relationship with JnJ? There are a lot of questions around this issue; if there's a relationship, why isn't it growing stronger? No explanation. There are many more questions - never answered, never addressed. The peculiar circumstances around the Bahamian financing. The cost of Varennes2, and how much money has been needlessly expended when present capacity is nowhere near its limits. The reason Markham has been unable to get conventional financing. How - specifically how - Markham intends to answer its debts, commitments, and obligations. How much of your money has been used to stack the BOD? That mystical "10%" of the market for Pennsaid... and the magical "$100 million" figure. With the greatest Pennsaid marketing commitment anywhere (and sales levelling off) what's the percentage in Canada? No answer. What percentage do we expect to achieve in those jurisdictions where we have less of a marketing commitment? Questions. Not even addressed. Not even with a poor answer. Nothing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The MMC didn't begin as an initiative by Mr. Chicoine, or by Dr. Kuhne. It started as an expression of dissatisfaction by shareholders. When it started, we'd never even *heard* of Mr. Chicoine. The fact is that dissatisfied shareholders may have to act on their own. The question is whether or not you believe management's past performance, and their present "explanations" justify your vote. Dr. Kuhne and Mr. Chicoine may not be able to overcome the obstacles created. No matter. They are not the objects of shareholder dissatisfaction: they haven't been running Dimethaid. Experience has taught you what to expect from existing management. Want more of the same? Vote for them. Vote to finance them. Give them your approval. You'll get all you want. Jim