Chosen,That is one way to look at it.The other way may be...

Chosen,
That is one way to look at it.

The other way may be this:

They have a clear commercial purpose - "To drive IMU to a shareprice acceptable to shareholders / that exceeeds fair value" (let's say!).

If this was correct, then would you not have as your strategy all the mechanisms that can achieve this. In IMU's case there are 4 - commercialise our poduct, license it, partner or be taken over.

To take the point further, let's consider the counter factual example.

If the purpose above was accurate, but let's say IMU decided their strategy was singulalry and clearly focussed - on maybe just one of ' commercialising' or 'licensing' or 'partnering'.

But, someone comes along with a takeover at $10. But CEO and BoD never had that as a possible strategy / mechanism / option to achieve your purpose - do you say 'No Thanks' and go along trying to (say) commercialise the product yourself, or holding out for a partner to turn up?.

If you take the counter fact for each of the strategies you get the same result. There is no one, single mechaism to achieve the stated purpose - having all four are in play is in fact the strategy to achieve the purpose, becasue all of them can.

It's an agile, while defensive approach. But it's not unclear.

The lack of a multi pronged strategy is in fact one of the reasons so many businesses fail.

EB