Dear Ms. Bir and Members of the Geron Board of Directors:
As a Geron Shareholder and Moderator of the Imetelchat Geron chat site I submit the following for your consideration at the upcoming Geron Shareholders Meeting:
1. Please clarify the company’s current view of the applicability of Imetelstat to B cell diseases.
2. Please clarify why Dr. Bruedigam’s ASH presentation was not made available for review on the Geron site in contrast to every other presentation made at last year’s ASH.
3. What is Geron’s current view of the problem of minimal residual disease and how might it be addressed in the future?
4. Is there any chance the DSMB could stop the IMpact study early? If it were to occur, how would the FDA view such an event?
5. Please discuss the issues that have resulted in continued changes in projected timelines for the IMpact study.
6. Are previous financial losses accrued over the past several years able to be applied to offset future tax liabilities?
7. Please discuss the potential impact of tariffs on Geron’s supply line and cost management
8. Please apprise us of updated UK approval and sales plans
9. Given Dr. Bruedigam's work that showed sustained reduction in AML blast cells from 99% to 1% (but not undetectable), in ven/aza/Imetelstat treated lab animals, once survival data is available, is long term suppressive therapy of this type a feasible alternative to seeking "cure" in the clinical setting? Is long term treatment evolving in this direction?
10. Given Geron's extensive IP, what future areas of development not currently active can we look for in the future?
11. Is there potential IP overlap with other companies, specifically MAIA that could provide synergies as telomere biology is better understood?
12. What is the status of partnership/acquisition talks in the US and abroad?
13. With the proven selective decrement in myeloma stem cells with Imetelstat treatment, why has this disease proven so difficult to approach?
14. Given the history of the company's history of deflecting direct interaction with shareholders and limiting the opportunity to ask questions only in written form to once a year for a limited period of time, do you think the board should alter and improve shareholder access and communication?
What is the status of the search for a new CEO?
15. Where do you see the greatest threat of competition?
16. Can you please address the issue of perceived stock price manipulation that could have adverse effects on small retail shareholders?
Thank you for your consideration. I am hopeful that your complete answers to these questions can further shareholder support for Geron.
Sincerely,
XXXXX, Geron Shareholder and Moderator of Imetelchat
Formalizing questions for the upcoming shareholders meeting
Forum rules
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
-
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm
-
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:48 pm
Re: Formalizing questions for the upcoming shareholders meeting
Good job BP, MG.
Re: Formalizing questions for the upcoming shareholders meeting
Outstanding BP!! Thx
Re: Formalizing questions for the upcoming shareholders meeting
Great questions? Betting odds they respond to at least any 3?
-
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm
Re: Formalizing questions for the upcoming shareholders meeting
Adding this:
Please clarify what happens statistically to BAT patients who cross over to treatment arm in the IMpact study. Since death rates are integral to result analysis, doesn't this event (cross over) potentially obscure the results from what was effectively the non imetelstat treatment arm (which of course changes once cross over to treatment occurs,) and not only potentially prolongs the study but makes using the BAT arm as a comparator more difficult?
Please clarify what happens statistically to BAT patients who cross over to treatment arm in the IMpact study. Since death rates are integral to result analysis, doesn't this event (cross over) potentially obscure the results from what was effectively the non imetelstat treatment arm (which of course changes once cross over to treatment occurs,) and not only potentially prolongs the study but makes using the BAT arm as a comparator more difficult?