Reasons Why Pharmas May Have Avoided Bioasis Some people seem to think that the only explanation for the lack of xB3 deals might be a failure of xB3. Here are some others.
First, we've had 3 CEOs in 6 years. That indicates trouble at the management/BoD level, which there most certainly has been. As a result, could some potential partners have a lack of confidence in the management and administration of Bioasis? After all, that’s part of the due diligence performed by pharma’s BD departments. It’s not just about the technology. The company is also important in pharmas’ evaluations. I don’t think Rathjen’s performance with Bionomics helps much. It’s very possible that calls went out to Bionomics to learn what could be learned. She presided over the near collapse of Bionomics. That’s not a great employment reference.
And then, it’s not hard to discover that Bioasis has been failing for 7 or 8 years! Look at the chart. And filings. Who wants to deal with such a poorly run company? The decline and demise of Bioasis has been in increasing view for over 5 years.
Most importantly, it was announced on April Fools’ Day, 2008, that the exchange had accepted the purchase of the xB3 technology as the company’s qualifying transaction. That was over 15 years ago and Bioasis has yet to prove xB3 in a manner sufficient to do some real business with it. That lengthy period must be a concern to any potential partner. They cannot help but ask themselves, “What’s wrong with this picture? Why haven’t they been proactive with xB3?”
Again, it raises the inevitable suspicion that Bioasis has hiding something about xB3. It’s probably the biggest reason why companies avoid Bioasis, and why, if they do make a deal, they are willing to pay so little for the opportunity.
I joined Bioasis in 2014, two years after I pointed out the possible consequences of not entering preclinical studies. By 2015 i should have sold my shares and run away.
jd