RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Consequences of a "no" vote: from IRRegarding "POF's shadow"...
poof says, "Rathjen delivered more deals..."
Most of what Rathjen "delivered" was started by MD. I won't name names but I know which ones, maybe shaky on a couple. Mark Day was very busy.
I talked with him about Prothena. He called me from Ireland, more than once. Whatever that was and however it came down, I won't say, but the BoD and its chair approved it. Later, we talked about XOMA buying into that deal. That was another interesting one, but it helped then and it helped after the Chiesi deal. MD and I discussed many things...
Those decisions did not make or break Bioasis. Bioasis couldn't do good deals because by 2017, 2016, really, the company was already in trouble. After 8 years, by 2016, the share price was down and dropping. No deals or important preclinical work were done after the peptide came out in 2014. And in late 2016 the market was indicating that time was up.
I believe that the $4 million financing that was completed two weeks before Mark Day was hired, both happening in April, 2017, was successful only because Mark Day was being hired. It may have otherwise been a tough financing. That said, I don't know how much, if anything, the participants knew about the hiring of a new CEO before the financing was completed.
After DrDR won the support of some major shareholders in March 2019, I had to fall in line, but I was still worried about a play to take Bioasis private. I was as much worried about Stagliano as I was Rathjen in that regard. My worry was that Bioasis would be allowed to fail, leaving no alternatives for shareholders, and I said it to anybody who would listen, which were many.
I don't care what poof has to say, whether he knows anything, or is being fed stuff. Too much of what he posts is uninformed, irrelevant, ill-considered, naive, or suspiciously obtained. Some things he posts I cannot argue because of my NDAs.
Normally, a deal like this can be accepted or rejected without such dire consequences. The deal is as bad as it is likely because of Lind's hooks on the assets. The "merger" is being done under extreme duress.
There is no doubt about risks. Bioasis shareholders have already lost. There is no possibility of preventing immediate loss. The question is where the best odds for some success are. The acquisition looks like a real play for success, but with low participation in success by Bioasis shareholders. A "no" vote could leave an empty Bioasis shell that would rolled back and maybe restarted by moose pasture being vended in. It's improbable that something could be vended in with the potential value that xB3 has.
Voting "no" is like being 3 runs down in the ninth, with the last of the order on deck, 2 out, nobody on, 0 and 2, with the batter swinging for the fence. Lot of huffing and grunting, but even if it goes over the fence, you're still two runs down and 2 out and not a lot of hope coming to the plate.
jd