RE:RE:A Little STFU StoryI agree with KayakerBC although I do see the possibility of an AGM/Special Meeting information circular and agenda coming out with no news beforehand and with a request for shareholder approval for a NASDAQ move through a major rollback and with some sort of device like a
Special Purpose Acquisition Company ("SPAC") or an RTO being used.
The money from the acquisition could fund a clinical trial but the Cresence trial will not prove xB3. What shareholders need to be careful of is giving Bioasis a mandate to go to NASDAQ without any real infomation, plans and news to consider first. Current shareholders could end up with 20% to 50% of the resulting company on NASDAQ which could turn out to be a good deal if Bioasis has news waiting in the wings to support the stock on the new exchange.
Bioasis needs to state a strong description of xB3's known capabilities and state its confidence in xB3. Also answer the question, has any partner, collaborator or licensee ever "faded away" because of problems with xB3?
Is xB3 worth betting on?
If it is, then a rollback and a partial ownership of the resulting company may be worth it. If not then, like LogicBio in my previous post, Bioasis could at some point slip below NASDAQ'a minimum listing requirements and then fade into obscurity.
I don't think that Bioasis should be given a mandate to do what it wants without more information, solid information, about xB3 and it commercial potential.
jd