I recently posted that Ladenburg Thalmann may have pushed Bioasis into a standstill situation, where one or more deals may have been put on hold until this "merger" is executed. A standstill is a common occurrence in deal negotiations because if other business agreements are being signed during negotiations then the value of one or both sides of the larger agreement may be changing, making negotiations almost impossible.
However bad Bioasis's situation is, almost any deal, even one as bad as the Chiesi deal, could buy time and provide funding for Bioasis to move forward in an independent manner. Such a deal could be an excellent Plan B.
There has been evidence leaked of such a deal being in existence, and that deal was apparently with Ellipses for xB3-001. The presentation that was leaked by Dr. Deborah Rathjen in June, 2022 at the Vancouver Airport roadshow made a very clear statement that there were new deals, including a deal for xB3-001 with Ellipses Pharma.
The leaked presentation, under the heading "New Partnerships," stated, "xB3-001 licensed to Ellipses." The Neuramedy and J&J/Janssen research deals were also in the presentation's list of new partnerships. (3 items in the list.)
That presentation, the one that was leaked in June at the airport, was meant for somebody other than Bioasis shareholders.
The information circular for the AGM describes the timeline of the Midatech/Bioasis in-person meetings that led to the "merger" agreement. The first meeting was on July 28. The Ellipses leak was in mid June. I believe it likely that the leaked presentation was meant for Midatech, LT and the other participants in the meetings.
The obvious question is whether the leaked presentation was meant to assist in the discussions between Stephen Stamp of Midatech and Deborah Rathjen that were to take place in the month following the Vancouver airport roadshow.
Did Bioasis have one or more deals in the hopper that could have prevented this terrible sellout? Almost any deal would have been enough. Did Bioasis, except for the leak, hide important information from shareholders? Did Bioasis postpone deal signings so they would not interfere with the closing of the "merger?"
It would seem certain that a deal for xB3-001 would have enough value to buy some wiggle room for Bioasis so that this "merger" can be voted down without shareholders being concerned about their vote.
Also, as Bioasis has indicated, if the company has moved on from the Ellipses deal, is it possible for representatives of Bioasis shareholders to immediately contact Ellipses for the purpose of affecting a Plan B prior to voting down this deal before the AGM? I would guess that Ellipses has signed an NDA but they may say "yes" if they were asked whether they would be interested in meeting with the new Bioasis management after the AGM. (If the "merger" is voted down, the current Bioasis management and BoD would be expected to resign.)
At the very least, there is a case to be made that regulators should be notified that there are some serious questions on the minds of the shareholders, including the possibility that one or more signings of Bioasis business deals could have been completed but may have been postponed until the "merger" is completed to avoid interference with the closing of the "merger," and that any deal may have been enough to prevent the sellout.
If there has been anything like this going on then shareholders are being asked to vote on the "merger" with inadequate disclosure, preventing them from making an informed judgement with respect to their vote. Worse, Bioasis management could be withholding important information from shareholders, possibly for their own benefit.
That leak and its timing are way too suspicious to be left unexplored. Is the leak enough to force open the possibility of a viable Plan B?
jd