can someone point out where i am wrong?

Over the past few years I have read a lot of very negative things about BTA. Management, in particularly, have received tonnes of criticism. Much of the criticism is founded but I think we are at the dawning of a new age for BTA (famous last words! Being a cynic I wonder how many other people have said this before).

As far as I can see the facts are:
(1) Relenza orders are increasing - refer to the UK order and the Japanese increase in orders.
(2) Tamiflu does not work against H1N1 - this highlights the need to have a balanced stockpile in case this also happens to the H5N1 strain.
(3) LANI is in phase 3 and it looks like a superior drug to both Tamiflu and Relenza - if it gets approved BTA will get a big RoW licensing fee plus ongoing royalties from the new anti-viral gold standard.
(4) BTA has approx $55m cash - it will take a lot of stuff ups to waste this money. This is possible but unlikely especially given most of its trials are paid for by its partners.
(5) The board has undergone change as promised - I dont know much about Jim Fox but I understand he is impressive. I dont know much about Richard Hill but he appears to be doing a very good job at SRX.
(6) BTA is not a broadly known stock - I would bet many institutions dont even know about BTA. I would also bet that they will only start following it once it gets bigger (e.g. mkt cap $200m+). If BTA gets to a larger market cap I would expect a lot more institutional interest in the company.
(7) BTA has some other drugs in the pipeline - I dont really know much about them but they are there and I assume they would be worth something.
(8) BTA is only trading at approx $40m above its cash backing - that means you get all the above for $40m!

Can someone please point out to me where I am wrong in my conclusion that BTA looks like a very exciting investment opportunity?