Ann: Prescient Gains IP Rights in CAR-T Collaboration, page-28

Agree DTshares, indeed ambiguous of late in the business model outlook.
There appears to be a decision ambivalence, in my opinion, as to prioritising the multi pipeline options and current bleak financial climate with no end in sight.
That is, the pipeline comprises of two compounds with 4 concurrent clinical studies, yet only two trials are currently active. Yes, I’m aware, the strategy was pre Covid onset and the objective was to make 2 of the trials local ( as opposed to overseas), hence budget reduced.
Both of the above ‘ inactive’ trials showed above average results ( in fact excellent results), and to date, no third party has come in financially to re-active either. Add the current climate finance uncertainties, both trials remain shelved.
The topical new venture on the CAR-T collaboration is seen as the ‘hot space area’, and the last public announcement re: 100% onus on financials resulting to IP monopoly is also ambivalent. Well, in my opinion anyway. Yes, it paves the way for the vehicle of PTX’s compounds within the highway of the CAR-T therapy, yet at a further cost ( from 50% to now 100%) then the original co-collaboration agreement. Long term a great move if successful.
As assured by SYC ( the CEO), all within budget.
My main point, and original reason for holding, is questioning why all concurrent trials are not active when the company is currently well funded and all trials met fundamentals at each of last reports.
Although currently yet to be in a position to accumulate further, the day will come, and the above ‘rambling’ may be clearer in direction either by company events or simply further disclosure(s).