I'll Go Through The Docs We don't know if voting "no" is safe, or relatively safe, or barely safe, or if it's suicide.. But if there is a little wiggle room to vote "no" then how about doing it and inviting Stephen Boyd of Armistice, or some other fund, or private people already associated with Bioasis, to assist Bioasis shareholders with at least enough funding to satisfy Lind (immediately) and then taking this forward either publicly or privately.
There could be a deal where shareholders' interests are protected and yet enough venture capital raised to get Bioasis to its first deal(s) that could then enable a self-sustaining company. A deal could be struck that would prevent either the fund or shareholders from knocking out the other..
Then take it to NASDAQ, either as a private company through an IPO, or as a public company to the exchange. Such a lift-off could approach Denali's a few years ago.
I believe there are deals out there for xB3-001, xB3-004 and likely for the expansion of agreements with J&J, Chiesi, maybe Protalix, and others, perhaps already verbally negotiated or in unsigned term sheets. There could be several of them.
So I ask you, right here, where the hell would these companies go if Bioasis remained an independent company? They would have to come to us. Ladenburg Thalmann knows that, Boyd knows it, Rathjen and Saltarelli know it, and all of the companies that have ever dealt with Bioasis in any manner know it.
Whether the current deal is a setup to place the xB3 opportunities into other hands or not, it still may be worth guaranteeing the future of Bioasis for Bioasis shareholders with a "no" vote and some initial money to float the boat sufficiently to get some fixes underway.
LT and The Placee want Bioasis. Why? I want to scream it!! Because they believe they can make money with xB3. There is no other reason. So why should shareholders give it to them and Rathjen?
Bioasis must answer the direct questions - what are the EXACT consequences of a "no" vote and what are the sequence and timings of those consequences? These are the shareholders asking their CEO for full disclosure of the state that Bioasis is in so that shareholders know what they are voting for.
But I don't think we'll get the answers because they're already available in the dozens of documents with hundreds of pages on SEDAR, and I believe Rathjen will refuse to discuss the contents of those filings, maybe for her own legal protection. The filings are the first and last word.
But wouldn't you like to know what deals might be there, waiting, if control is achieved and Rathjen is gone?
I don't know whether it's safe to vote "no" and I can't advise it without some serious reading. I will spend today on it and get back to this forum as soon as I can. But it won't be a legal opinion. I will, however, try to provide you with a comprehensive overview with quotes from the docs.
I'll start with the information circular and the doc dump of January 11. No calls please. I'm busy.
Oh, I don't know what this is worth, but the Q3 financials are
due on Monday January 30.
jd