Ann: FDA Schedules GvHD Pre-License Manufacturing Inspection, page-254

Hi @Cato

I don't disagree with the sentiment you express.

But I do consider that the Board of MSB has in place extensive defences against hostile takeover, not least being those installed since Novartis showed it's true colours.

IMO these include, but aren't limited to, change of control provisions under terms of MSB's IP licensing to date, the basis of Oaktree Capital's involvement in debt refinancing, MSB Board member expansion (with legal & regulatory focus), MSB Board non-CEO rotation policy & the extent of the CEO's direct continuing rights as a shareholder. As I see it, MSB shareholders should also consider all extant (& pending) indication partnering relations as being analogous to 'white knight' provisions - e.g. ask yourself what might Grunenthal be willing to do to protect it's non-US CLBP development rights.

In my opinion, and just based on publicly available information, MSB has also done well to prepare the licensing groundwork simultaneously across diverse platforms & multiple indications. Why? Because with new value planned to emerge across other MSB lines/ product indications in close time proximity to high value events (like the upcoming planned marketing approval), it will be much easier for the Board to demonstrate to existing shareholders that whatever price a hypothetical takeover offeror put on the table, it could not possibly pick up all that readily realizable value.

Sure the latent value is there, but should there be a hostile takeover offer following on MSB's first marketing approval, I think the Board will be reasonably ready for it.

All good as I see it. Just idle thoughts. Not advice.

Cheers