Name, you're being cleverClyde's "if" remark was in answer to...

Name, you're being clever

Clyde's "if" remark was in answer to your comment "What I don't understand is how you think this would have been so beneficial to Suda's long term holders"

Presumably you mean if the deal had gone ahead?

Since it did go ahead - but in a separate entity - you can make a direct comparison and control for the dilution

The new investors in Chimeric pumped in roughly double the then market cap of Suda - so the original Suda shareholders would have ended up reduced to owning a third of the company. Chimeric has, however, peaked at 7 or 8 times Suda's then market cap.

And that's Chimeric, not Suda.

Suda would have had the CAR-T tech but still also kept it's $12m worth of whatever. And this doesn't include the synergies the market may have seen between the CAR-T and anagrelide. It's easy to argue Suda's market cap would have comfortably outstripped Chimeric's.

So, yes, it would have been unambiguously good for long term Suda holders.

In relation to your other point, Suda holders actually were involved in the Chimeric float, but no doubt they would have preferred that the vehicle had been Suda