I have read the annual reports, MineDigger. I agree, not much there.
The Prothena options did, indeed, expire, which likely means that Prothena is doing nothing with xB3. As I have stated, Bioasis ought to at least reveal whether there was a problem with xB3 or not. Whether there was a problem with Prothena's payload drug, or whether Prothena decided to not proceed with the target is unknown, and Bioasis doesn't need to directly address that. But I do think that reassurance about xB3 is in order.
The two contract disputes referenced in the MD&A are also referenced in the financial report in section 17. They have nothing to do with me. I hope to avoid being referenced as a dispute. We'll know soon and if there is a dispute that has been advanced to legal action, I will report it here.
The Lind deal appears to be intact so Bioasis would appear to still have access to $7 million to buy time for work to be done, hanging on, keeping the lights on, etc.
The following statement about milestone and other payments can be found in both the Prothena and Chiesi subsections of Section 11 of the financial report. The passages state, "The Company determined that at this point in time it is remote that any of these payments will be made due to the current state of development of the technology."
It doesn't bother me that the statement is made about Prothena. I believe they are gone. However, the same statement about Chiesi is a concern. After two years, has Chiesi started some work or not? If not, why not? Could it be because of delayed development of the fusion proteins? Are there any dependencies on the FDA's inspection of the Chiesi/Protalix manufacturing facilities and the subsequent approval of Protalix/Chiesi's PRX-102 for Fabry disease? Would that inspection and approval of PRX-102 derisk the advancement of the four Chiesi LSDs? If Protalix is not working with Chiesi on these LSDs, then why is Chiesi so delayed with them?
Secrecy is such a pain. It is impossible to have any considered opinions about the values of the various xB3 programs when we know nothing about them. We don't even know what drug/disease combinations are retained by Bioasis, which ones are in the hands of partners, and what work is being done on any of them. This represents a complete shroud over everything that Bioasis is or is not doing, what it owns, and what partners control.
It's no wonder that the market cannot place faith in any value of Bioasis shares. There just isn't enough information except about cheap deals that may or may not be active. It's an impossible situation for current and potential shareholders.
But...
There's still xB3 and the value of getting drugs into the brain. Both of those are very real and could bring a big win for shareholders. But when Bioasis and its partners know way more than investors, then investors may have their hands tied behind their backs and cannot effectively compete with the partners for the true value of xB3.
More disclosure from Bioasis is required to help the market assess the values of xB3 programs and opportunities.
jd