can someone point out where i am wrong?, page-5

I don't have time to dig into my notes, but here are some quick answers.
As far as I can see the facts are:
(1) Relenza orders are increasing - refer to the UK order and the Japanese increase in orders.
If you chart the relenza orders they are still down substantially, this may be about to change but that is speculation.

(2) Tamiflu does not work against H1N1 - this highlights the need to have a balanced stockpile in case this also happens to the H5N1 strain.
Conceptually yes, but then politics and marketing come into play and the final result may not be so balanced.

(3) LANI is in phase 3 and it looks like a superior drug to both Tamiflu and Relenza - if it gets approved BTA will get a big RoW licensing fee plus ongoing royalties from the new anti-viral gold standard.
Too many assumptions in this statement makes it worthless.
Sankyo to market LANI I find the press releases from Biota decidedly vague and perhaps verging on the purposefully misleading. In this one they state "Biota and Sankyo are entilled to equally share all licensing, milestone and royalty fees received by the joint venture." WTFDTM? Sankyo are not licensing, receiving milestone payments or royalty fees. They are developing it and will market it themselves. Does anyone know for sure that Biota will receive anything from LANI sales in Japan?
Why has no-one picked up LANI rights before now?

(4) BTA has approx $55m cash - it will take a lot of stuff ups to waste this money. This is possible but unlikely especially given most of its trials are paid for by its partners.
Do you know there annual cash burn? If so why not state what it is and how long it will last.

(5) The board has undergone change as promised - I dont know much about Jim Fox but I understand he is impressive. I dont know much about Richard Hill but he appears to be doing a very good job at SRX.
I know little about them either except what I could google. Neither appear to have any drug research or development experience.

(6) BTA is not a broadly known stock - I would bet many institutions dont even know about BTA. I would also bet that they will only start following it once it gets bigger (e.g. mkt cap $200m+). If BTA gets to a larger market cap I would expect a lot more institutional interest in the company.
I bet every institution knows about Biota, heck your average punter in Melbourne knows about it.

(7) BTA has some other drugs in the pipeline - I dont really know much about them but they are there and I assume they would be worth something.
You know what they say about assumptions, though I agree the pipeline is worth something. That and future Relenza cash flow is why I bought Biota when it was trading around cash.

(8) BTA is only trading at approx $40m above its cash backing - that means you get all the above for $40m!
I liked that argument better when you could say you got everything for free.