Boomskid wrote: I was just asked an interesting question by a shareholder, a big one. I mean, a big shareholder asked me a big question.
Were the Cresence people "taken" in this deal? I was intending to include some thoughts about Cresence in my previous post but the post became quite involved and it slipped my mind.
Whether or not the Cresence people were "taken" is something only they can answer. But the question about why Bioasis did the Cresence deal may be a little easier to figure out.
When the Cresence deal was announced in June, 2022, just a few months ago, it was rather perplexing, but what I and others settled on was that Bioasis wanted to go onto NASDAQ and could promote itself better if it could call itself a "clinical stage" company. Preclinical companies don't do so well in the larger markets, if they can manage to get there. It was either that or xB3 had failed and Cresence was an exit strategy, something I questioned on here but didn't believe.
But then came this Midatech deal. Midatech, already a clinical stage company, didn't need Bioasis or Cresence in order to call itself clinical stage. And by June, Bioasis certainly knew that a deal would be done with Midatech and the LT group of players.
So why did Bioasis buy Cresence?
I think it's possible it was for the purpose of setting up the Midatech deal and creating a situation where the xB3 Platform could later be extracted from Biodexa with a minimum of notice and complaining. Bioasis may have been attempting to reposition or rebrand itself as an EGF, clinical stage company, shifting its value centre away from a BBB drug delivery company to the therapeutics company, just as the Midatech deal filing states and as I pointed out in my "Smoking Gun" post.
This theory is supported by the almost total removal of xB3 material from Bioasis publications, certainly including the corporate presentation. As I have pointed out, the corporate presentation morphed from almost 60 pages about xB3 to 17 pages (now 30 pages) with only 3 pages about xB3. One of the three pages is the title page with only "xB3 Platform" written on it. That's only two pages about xB3 - and the information leaves out a huge number of attributes, accomplishments, programs and other information about xB3.
I contend that the Bioasis CEO and BoD, and all the other participants in the Biodexa deal, want xB3 to be completely played down to almost no value. The Cresence EGF properties are now presented as the pre-Biodexa value centre for Bioasis. They are listed before xB3 in the presentation and deal filings. They command far more space than xB3, with no mention of major xB3 development programs other than the almost ridiculous Hunter Syndrome property.
Bioasis shareholders will own just under 10% of Biodexa when the deal is done. The Cresence people, paid with Bioasis shares, will own only 0.6% of Biodexa. Bioasis has been valued in the deal at 15 times the value of the Cresence properties, and yet xB3 has largely disappeared. I think it's possible that these comparative valuations betray an attempt to create misguided valuations in the minds of Bioasis and Midatech shareholders, and in the investing public.
It suggests that this is a play to extract xB3, in large part, from Biodexa at as low a price as possible, and with as little notice and complaining as possible.
I unreservedly question Dr. Deborah Rathjen and the BoD's intentions in playing all of this the way they have done.
The blind support being pumped by prophetoffactz and others is very suspicious. To say it is ridiculous and embarrassing is an understatement.
JD Boomskid