Jimmy,
Further to my earlier remark on the Feb presentation, I am somewhat focused to understand what this bullet means. They use "advanced discussion" so that means something to me, ONLY in particular now that Linda Pullan is in the equation:
"In advanced discussions with three major interested parties from the animal health sector"
At first glance, I assumed that one of the three partners would be Wanbang, however I have since confirmed that they are not "one of the three major interested parties" noted. Perhaps they are a partner to formulate product as they did actually produce sglt2 pills for the human trials and we do know from some other patents that the Sirona tablets were supplied to Boehringer as well to support the testing required to firm up their patents (or have very very high probability in my opinion)
Elanco is very likely one of them as they were noted in the financials, Boehringer did a cat study a year or more ago specifically testing a new diabetic formula in a trial format, and they are someway connected to the patent activity noted above, and so that leaves me wondering who is number 3.
If three players are all collaborating here to get a deal signed up, then that says to me, from a business perspective, that all three are comfortable using the same product and branding it/globally marketing it under their own banners (maybe). Enter Wanbang: these guys are good at one thing (other than jerkin us around on human trials which we are not disputing), and that is manufacturing generic drugs at very low unit cost.
So my mind is boggled here with the prospect on Animal Health. Three global players in Animal Health - is it possible that IF this agreement is formed, then it would entirely dwarf the top 10 scenario? I don't know. But three big ones are better than 1.
But with Sirona and its history I am fully tempered with the fact that nothing is real until it is in writing in the form of announcement, so nobody should make a buy decision on that. My musings are just that.