Boomskid wrote: There are a number of Bioasis scenarios that could have, and might still, save the company. The trouble for shareholders, as it’s always been, is secrecy.
The scenarios may all have something in common. First, a brief look at the possible situations.
The xB3-001 Ellipses Deal
This deal was revealed in a corporate presentation that shareholders were not meant to see. It was revealed almost exactly a year ago. The revelation was made in a section of the presentation called “New Partnerships” and with the statement, “xB3-001 licensed to Ellipses”. Note the past tense, as in, “It’s done.”
It’s likely that the Ellipses deal for xB3-001 was real, but was cancelled or “shelved” because good news was not wanted before the Midatech deal. I suspect that the accidental leak was not appreciated by Ladenburg Thalmann (LT) because it would push the share price up making the Midatech deal harder or impossible to complete. Also, xB3 was being downplayed, and this deal would have made NEWS!! And, most importantly, the deal would have financed Bioasis and maybe even assured the company's future.
Prothena
Prothena is pushing ahead with PRX012, its Alzheimer’s therapeutic that deals with amyloid beta. If this turns out to be an xB3 drug then I must include it in the points I’m about to make. I've posted before about the meaning of Bioasis mangement knowing that xB3 was being successfully proven in humans and yet xB3 was being played down and Bioasis being allowed or caused to fail.
Protalix
If Protalix announces on June 27 that their future plans include a CNS-penetrating version of their Fabry disease drug, Elfabrio, then we need to include that in our discussion. I have already posted the probable meaning of this.
My Questions
I think it possible, maybe likely, that any one of these deals, if any had happened, was enough to strengthen Bioasis and to maybe even save Bioasis from capitulating in the Midatech deal that caused the share price to drop to 3¢ and on down to 1¢.
I would contend that Bioasis knew the state of all three deals (and the Neuramedy deal). I think the Ellipses deal was real, and big. If the Midatech/Biodexa deal was completed, under the terms of the agreement, any milestone payment, up front payment, or any other payments owed to Bioasis when these deals produced them would be payable to Biodexa. Was this sufficient reason to delay all deals and milestone payments until the Midatech deal was done?
Did Bioasis purposefully hold back completion of any deals (Ellipses, especially), in order to get the Midatech deal done?
Did Rathjen use these milestones and deals as value or selling points in her negotiations to sell Bioasis? The leaked “Ellipses” Corporate Presentation was not meant for shareholders’ eyes, that is certain. Was Rathjen delaying that deal? Or did she have to cancel it to get the Midatech deal done? (Who cares about Ellipses? xB3-001 shouldn’t really be very hard to sell, after all.)
Has Prothena developed an xB3 drug for Alzheimer’s that is in human trials? If so, would Bioasis have had a higher share price and have been able to raise funding if the market knew about it? If true, should the existence of such an xB3 drug be material, especially to the shareholders of a failing company that has been denigrating the value and capabilities of xB3? It's pretty hard to devalue a successful technology.
Is there more to the Protalix/Fabry situation than we know about? Is there a milestone payment (or more, like a partnership with Protalix) about to fall? If so, how could Rathjen even consider selling Bioasis without a better fight, and allowing the shareholders to help in the fight?
How much of all these things did Rathjen know? Did she purposefully schedule things in order to get the “merger” done? Did she downplay promotion of the capabilities and value of xB3 in order to get the deal done, and to set up a later selloff of the xB3 Platform?
Did she have shareholders interests in mind?
Have these questions caused any concerns among partners and potential partners? If Rathjen were to be investigated for acting contrary to shareholder interests, would current and potential partners avoid Bioasis out of their concerns about being drawn into a legal fray? Has this happened? (Ellipses, say?).
Beats me. Don’t even bother considering my thoughts about all this. The share price is 1¢. Considerations ought to begin with that little number.
Another Question
Did the Janssen agreement expire on January 31, 2023, as called for in their agreement with Bioasis? Note that the expiration, January 31, is convenient in that the date is a day or two after Bioasis released their Q3 filings, meaning that shareholders then wouldn’t know anything about it before the February AGM and until the annual report comes out at the end of June, about 3 weeks from now. (The Prothena options expiry date was adjusted to July 31 a couple of years ago, also allowing a big delay in reporting their expiration.)
Rathjen’s behaviour ought to be questioned in a more formal manner.
jd