Cardioprotection thread, page-510

@HeyLine

Responding here:

"Hi John, Are you trying to say a licensing deal before CPACs (+FTO) clinical validation? Why would anyone want Bis if it's a rubbish athracycline (Masons words) and not clinically validated? Would the Chinese just be happy to use it off preclinical data? Has anyone shared an example of what these deals could look like?"

Seems odd that you're asking this question, which is effectively; why would anyone invest in Zan before CPACS + FTO clinical validation? Why are you invested here if not a result of our preclinical, and perhaps the implications of our clinical data? Big Mas also said this regarding Sheba 2.0; "The fact that there were no clinically relevant cardiotoxic events and no patient developed ECG changes is unequivocal..."

I'm invested in Zan because I think the odds are overwhelmingly in my favour and I want to enjoy the upside between preclinical and clinical validation (which I think might even be contained within the Sheba 2.0 data).

In terms of a licensing deal, I've applied a 99% risked discount to the extrapolation of the Triangle report based on securing 10% of the Chinese and Japanese Anthracycline + CPACS TAM (not even the entirety of Asia), which could be in the ballpark of ~US$900m (+royalties) prior to clinical validation. I believe applying an extremely discounted model could still net RAC >US$100m for licensing in China and Japan (+royalties) prior to clinical validation. Raising $100m now and diluting SOI by ~50% when we don't need the cash to achieve clinical validation is just nonsensical.

There's a lot of talk re waiting ~12 months for CPACS clinical validation for any sort of SP rerate. I don't subscribe to this. I expect an IND and international expansion of the CPACS trial will drive a rerate in anticipation of any clinical validation (unless of course it magically arrives sooner).