RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:British Columbia Securities Commission!!"What we have here is, a CEO, of a Canadian Company, with its head office in the USA, and who's presence is in Aussiland, where by the way Carina Biotech resides!!"
That's a very superficial way of looking at it, in my opinion, narmac. The truth is that Rathjen has taken preclinical Carina, raised substantial funding including from institutions over the last couple of years, and in the last few weeks received a 'green light' from the FDA to commence human clinical trials. Rathjen has proven a great success at Carina and it is these very skills from finance, to getting in the clinic that BTI needs right now. At Bionomics she also entered a major deal with Merck.
At BTI, despite inheriting a company with no cash, a history of failure that led to multiple management transitions, and being handed shareholders that were trying to get her to swear off dilution, she has been the most dynamic CEO BTI has ever had. She has closed more deals, bigger deals, and negotiated more transformative deals than any CEO in BTI's history. She achieved this despite being dealt a once-in-a-Century pandemic and the worst biotech market in history on top of the serious issues BTI suffered when she became CEO of BTI. Even a Former Group Finance Director of Shire defied anyone to find a company with more opportunity of Biodexa's size. That is notable. Rathjen also attracted a high performance fund in Armistice Capital validating the vision. From Carina's success as it now moves into the clinic to her achievements at BTI there is alot that she has achieved.
Preclinical biotech is inherently very risky. Beyond the scientific risks, given the financial risks and risks to timelines shareholder risk is even more. No one is entitled to a smooth path in this game. Chiesi was up for potential FDA approval of its Fabry asset well over one year ago but the FDA changed an 18 year old rule that protected competition on the market, I believe. No one saw it coming. Some say it suggests political interference. What if it didn't happen? Where could BTI be now? What if Rathjen hadn't encounted the worst biotech market in history and the market responded more normally to the J&J deal, etc.? 25% of biotech was trading below cash in 2022. Historic. What if BTI hadn't had its history of failure that she has been forced to try and work around and what if the company had the appropriate cash when she became CEO? She was put in a giant hole. What if shareholders hadn't wanted to avoid dilution and to take on debt into the worst biotech market in history thereby risking the company? Biodexa tried to address so many of BTI's historic issues, finally, from the undercapitalization, to getting on NASDAQ, to getting a strong shareholder base, to building scale, etc. It was an incredibly bold move to finally right the ship that had been heading into an iiceberg for a decade.