When i pressed about Kalbe during a presentation Q&A, the...

When i pressed about Kalbe during a presentation Q&A, the company said that arrangements like Kalbe is not something to must be disclosed to market, which is a shame. But that tells me that this likely wasn't the first and won't be the last.

More clinical data is definitely a plus, but so are these research papers highlighting the difference between Cymerus-MSCs and MSCs from different sources, i.e.
"iMSC and UC.MSC secretomes contained proteins indicating proliferative potential and telomere maintenance, whereas adult tissue-derived secretomes contained fibrotic and ECM-related proteins. The data and findings from this study will inform the optimum MSC source for particular applications and underpin further development of MSC therapies."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41536-024-00382-y

Depending on the application, Cymerus-MSCs are essentially a better "fit." Therefore, papers like the above, published in nature to ensure it reaches the relevant peers is also very important.

At this stage, it is important to finally get a partner on board, one that doesn't do a FF, but instead "sticks." The whole talk about the FF partnership validating the platform, them deciding to hand back the sub-licence and instead be our new CMO instead made these validation talks a farce. In my opinion, this set us back more than what the initial sub-licence agreement lifted us up. Get a partner, and we can move on.

I don't think that Cynata would let someone try and engineered approach using our cells in an indication that has already been sub-licensed. It wouldn't make sense to invest in a development program for which (ideally) the partner bears all the costs.
Licensing agreements to limit the indication and markets would not allow for this. But again, it needs signed deals first. And since we have none, we are at a MC of A$60 million, which is less than what even one potential deal could be worth in upfront and milestone payments.