Ann: 2023 Annual Report to shareholders, page-79

I think hottod is right that 1) pursuing a Ph III PMS alone would be risky (requiring most of their existing cash and income) and 2) that partnering for PMS or licensing it out would muddy the waters for a future T/O (a large acquirer would prefer an asset not already encumbered to other parties).

However, as others have mentioned, there's still the 3rd way, external funding from a party like Blackrock. This would allow Neuren to access much more cash (several Ph 3s? lots more Ph 2s?), reduce the risks, and also avoid complications for an eventual T/O. The assumption would be that the funding party would be along for the T/O and cooperate with it. In fact, it would be the reason they're involved - their goal is a full 'exit' in a few years.

This move would dilute the eventual return with the 3rd party obviously getting a % of any final deal for their support. However, so long as you can see how giving up 15-25% equity (or agreeing to the funding party taking a similarly structured 'fee' in a T/O) now would help you increase the final T/O price by at least this 15-25% (something likely easy to argue for) then this could be an easy decision.

Funding is normally expensive. However, Neuren's in a great position with an on-market product, strong pipeline, positive cashflows and likely a relatively short time frame to exit (maybe 2-3 years, unlike a biotech startup with an exit 10 years away). Neuren would be able to drive a deal on favourable terms. In fact, I could imagine parties like Blackrock falling over themselves to assist in funding such a high quality opportunity.

As we know, there's already been a few comments from Jon & others hinting that such an arrangement may be under consideration.