RE:RE:One Thing Thanks for your comments, OttawaPeter. I get it about creative financings but there is no deal of any kind that isn't dilutive.
Even a deal with Ellipses is dilutive in the sense that an important asset would no longer belong to Bioasis and the company probably would get too little for it.
The deal I like best is something like the Takeda deal with Denali where Bioasis gets a strategic partner, an equity financing done, and some up front revenue for the partner's license.
But Bioasis needs a whole new look. I have documents where I pitched it to RH 8 or 9 years ago.
I doubt that shareholders will vote her out. I don't think they can be bothered to do it. I suspect that Bioasis will fail and lose its assets. Rathjen will be free to do this all over again.
I don't have the answers but continuing to do the same things after 15 years doesn't make a whole of sense to me.
About Mei Mei, yes, of course she should stay, but shareholders don't have a vote on that so I didn't bother mentioning her or the other employees and contractors. If you do a word search of the Information Circular for the word "Mei" you find that it occurs only twice (feeble joke), and only in the context of "the Company's knowledge," a reference to the combined knowledge of all Bioasis people.
This deal was a lot of work for nothing. The time and money it wasted is devastating. It is another failure. And yet I suspect that there are outsiders still looking at xB3 and the opportunities it would give them if they could get their hands on it.
jd