So you weren't talking about the corporate structure, you meant...

So you weren't talking about the corporate structure, you meant the tightly held equity. Good. And I agree with your statement that a hostile takeover isn't a realistic proposition.

However, I wouldn't rule out a friendly "takeover" (in the form of a scheme of arrangement). The approach would be something like "Prof Itescu, you have achieved an incredible amount, kudos to you! But you must be frustrated that you can't realise your vision as quickly as you'd like. As CEO of <highly successful pharma>, I share your vision, and have the resources that would allow you to execute on your vision much more quickly. We can reward MSB's shareholders and provide you immediate liquid wealth, but much more importantly you would then lead a newly formed business unit, with all the people and financial resources needed to attain your vision. Now let's agree an appropriate level of reward for existing shareholders..."

For the record, I really hope this doesn't happen. I've been part of the voting down of a SOA before because of potential future upside. Very painful and distracting exercise for everybody.

For anybody unaware of Australian company takeover law, here is a good primer... https://www.minterellison.com/articles/summary-of-australian-takeover-laws