@Fastback6666 a CR at these levels would be a disaster and sadly...

@Fastback6666 a CR at these levels would be a disaster and sadly indicate IMO that Mesoblast are nowhere near signing any partnership / royalty deals / license deals for any indication after years of claiming they were in negotiations with multiple scenarios ?


..... and people wonder why I wanted Mesoblast to formalise a CLBP partnership prior to the FDA PDUFA date on 2 August ..... even though Rexlemestrocel-L has nothing to do with Remestemcel-L / GVHD as they are different indications, I would imagine that the size of any CLBP partnership deal now would be somewhat reduced from what it could have been prior to 2 Aug ?


Big pharma or SurgCenter (if applicable) are run by ruthless business people with an aim to make money / obtain the best possible deals for their respective organisations .... unfortunately they aren't going to be generous if they don't have to be / see an opportunity from the company's financial vulnerability


That said, Rexlemestrocel-L for the treatment of CLBP having obtained both an FDA RMAT designation along with an FDA agreed reduced timeframe endpoint of 12 months for the additional phase 3 trial adds substantial value to any CLBP proposition, however any interested parties are still likely to attempt to leverage off the poor financial situation in any negotiations .... time to sell off parts of the farm in a CLBP partnership or royalty deal and get on with the additional phase 3 trial Mesoblast - the previous CLBP phase 3 trial results were released almost 3 years ago - just sayin'