This account is pending registration confirmation. Please click on the link within the confirmation email previously sent you to complete registration. Need a new registration confirmation email? Click here
Oct. 22, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- On
October 22, 2012,
Gregory V. Novak and
Robert S. Goggin (the "Concerned Vermillion Stockholders" or "Group") sent a letter to the board of Vermillion, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRML) (the "Company"). The text of the letter follows:
Board of DirectorsVermillion, Inc.12117 Bee Caves Road
Austin, TX 78738
Dear Members of the Board of Directors:
October 2, 2012, an investment banker (the "Banker") representing a diagnostic company ("Proponent") contacted a representative of the Group. The Banker stated that the Proponent was potentially interested in a merger or acquisition transaction involving the Company and the Proponent and/or exploring alternative ways of helping to realize value with regards to OVA1 (the Company's FDA approved ovarian cancer test). The Banker further stated that he had been trying repeatedly - without success - to reach the Company to initiate a dialogue between the Company and the Proponent.
October 5, 2012, a member of the Group spoke directly with the Banker and learned that the Banker/Proponent had also been trying repeatedly to reach the Company directly to discuss the prospects of a transaction, leaving no fewer than four unreturned voicemails.
October 18, 2012, the Banker again contacted the Group to say that still no one from Vermillion had returned the calls from the Banker. The Banker stated that
Gail Page, the Company's departing CEO, failed to attend a call which was affirmatively scheduled for
This inaction cannot be justified.
Need we remind you that since emerging from bankruptcy in July of 2010, that the Company's stock is down more than 88% destroying over
$200M in market value? We believe this inaction is another example
of the Board disregarding stockholders and a breach of your fiduciary duties as directors.
Please explain to your stockholders – immediately – why you have refused to engage with a qualified Proponent.