If the technology is sufficiently unique and game-changing (and AHZ's TAVR is) then any agreement will be negotiated from a position of strength, not desperation.
The way to do this is to have potential partners competing. The multiple parties for partnering negotiations is based on the properties of AHZ's TAVR. That's science-based and reality-based and about risk management and risk profiles.
It's not wishful thinking.
Further truly successful negotiated outcomes involve win/win outcomes.
It's a sign of maturity to acknowledge this and to understand the mechanics of how.
As it turned out, events didn't go smoothly as Cephalon was taken over by Teva, an Israeli based biotech company with an ageing patent stable and ambitions to capture a company with a young patent stable. MSB has families of patents. I won't go into further details other than minimally, but if AHZ is thorough enough it will investigate if a potential partner is itself insulated from hostile takeover. As part of due diligence.
The example I've given is complex, in that it takes about a billion dollars to bring a pharmaceutical drug to market. But stem cells are far from pharmaceutical drugs, and FDA approvals processes were changed to accommodate this. It's just that Teva had emergencies of it's own brought on by bad decisions to back pharmaceutical drugs, with colossal losses as they failed. Cephalon was well-positioned financially with their stable but Teva was not.
The point is MSB insulated itself from hostile takeover by deft ownership strategy of management, and a refusal to take cheap deals. However, it needed to ensure that the partner had done the same. If AHZ does this (and the risks for therapeutic devices are FAR LESS than for drug trials) then it should be sweet in terms of risk management.
Teva will live to regret their aggression IMO as they backed the wrong horses with other moves, and had to do a fire sale to exit the deal with MSB. The outcome was MSB emerged with full ownership of the IP and didn't have to repay any of the money Teva had spent on FDA approvals.
For those who appreciate the nuances of these IP battles, MSB is far from in a bad position. It just looked that way, (and continues to look that way, from the outside). IMO.
AHZ is operating in a far less risky environment. Clinically and in terms of capital risk. IMO.
I take a lot of comfort from the quality of the AHZ Board. These guys are far from amateurs. They know this sector and deal-making very well. Particularly the Chairman.
(This is NOT a ramp about MSB. Information and views are for illustration purposes only).
(20min delay)