If the financing can be done at the indication or product level,...

If the financing can be done at the indication or product level, it need not be as dilutive to shareholders as if it were done at the top MSB level and would spell trouble for the shorters. Project financing for, say, mining plants that are close to the commercial sales and/or production once built, is not unheard of. I was listening in to a zoom meeting of one such mining company last week with large scale capital needs but the confidence of delivering on the project once the needs are met. Instead of diluting shareholders, the company can retain part of a project or a cashflow stream (a la Iluka Resources and Deterra) even as outside partners are brought in. The latter could be financial or strategic ones. Strategic partners can bring with them commercial skills and/or market access.

The structures can be varied and tailored to specific projects and even listed in future. The benefits are many, for instance providing ease of structuring a varied pipeline, operational flexibility, stage financing and stability in future cash flows alongside an existing, riskier R&D pipeline, while allowing the company to still hold a part of what will in future be potentially a much bigger pie by bringing in capital partners for different permutations and combinations of individual pieces of the business.

Even a minority stake in a very big market like CLBP could be very lucrative. The setback in the aGVHD indication could force the company’s hand in a good way too, as you have opined.