On further reflection, if the Board are seiously contemplating...

On further reflection, if the Board are seiously contemplating IPO2 then you would think the CFO with experience in banking who would know all the details of and lessons learned from IPO1 would be a pretty logical appointment, rather than an exhaustive worldwide search and a bedding in period for a new CEO.

It is also pretty clear from the movement in the SP since those fateful days in December that the market liked the structural separation and it did, temporarily at least, create a lot of value.

I still see the business logic of a structural seperation, however what we dont want is going back to the US markets on the same terms as last time and copping another failure. No warrants, implementing lock up periods, further advancement in Ph3 might help matters but none more so then the general risk on mood in world markets.

In my mind it makes sense to get the IPO done before Ph3 results given we are trying to seperate the risk and non-risk parts of the business.

At the least the new CEO shoudl already know the business and decide shortly one way or the other.