RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Bioasis Connections I have reconsidered my statement that the quote posted by KayakerBC contains a falsehood. It doesn't but it does attempt to direct attention away from xB3-001. The part of the quote I take some exception to is this:
"...the board took the strategic decision to pause that program and to divest or out-license XB3-001. This was not because of any lack of faith in the asset. Quite the contrary. Since that time we have engaged with several potential partners and discussions are ongoing...."
As I have posted for months, it is likely that somebody is working on xB3-001. It's an easy cash cow. The mistaken revelation in Vancouver supports that. So let's assume that a partner has been chosen and is working on xB3-001 and then examine the quote. Note that, as a result of the mistake in Vancouver, some shareholders know who that partner is.
So Bioasis states that they've paused the program, meaning they're not working on xB3-001. True enough. Bioasis isn't working on it. Somebody else is. I don't think very much of a statement like that, not when shareholders have suffered for so long.
They also state that the decision was to divest or out-license xB3-001. I believe they have not formally done either but are having a chosen partner do work under an agreement that may be similar to a material transfer agreement. That would allow the secrecy, sort of, and would allow that work to be done with no money changing hands, and with no formal pledge of the asset to that partner.
xB3-001 is Bioasis's most visible and, possibly, its most valuable asset. With the Texas Tech study, it certainly contributes to whatever confidence shareholders have in Bioasis. If that asset has been pledged in any way, even as a purchase option, or if any work being done will be used as part of an IND application, then the agreement should be considered material and should be disclosed. There is a massive difference between no work being done and preclinical work being done.
But if the pre-IND or other work is being done but no deal or option for a deal is contained in the agreement then the final part of the quote may be true. The company states, "Since that time we have engaged with several potential partners and discussions are ongoing."
That could mean that the company has been engaged with potential partners but it doesn't exclude the likelihood that discussions have come down to one partner, who is doing work, but with whom there is no agreement in place to sell or out-license xB3-001. That would be what "discussions are ongoing" could be about. This is the scenario that I believe has happened.
So it's not a falsehood, but it certainly is an attempt to hide the true situation. Bioasis documents are full of such obscurities, probably because the company has allowed its partners to control the message. Even the company's own pipeline status is secret.
And the stock is 18¢ because of the secrecy, at least in part. The company's partners understand full well that secrecy helps prevent other pharmas from also pursuing xB3-001 and other xB3 opportunities. In my opinion, it's an attempt by management to remain in the fellowship of pharma executives, to hobnob with The Players, rather than play hardball with them and refuse their demands for secrecy that comes at the expense of shareholder interests.
I'm going to go mow my lawn...