https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...00&usg=AFQjCNFRafqLn-vTU9d5OdmmsPzV9NGmHA
Some notes pulled from the submission below by Arno Müllbacher PhD
It's always an idea to go back in history to the very beginning to see how a company first came to fruition.
Any thoughts?
Submission to the Senate inquiry into the capacity of public universities to meet Australia’s higher education needs.
By
Arno Müllbacher PhD
40 Jennings Street, CURTIN,
ACT, 2605
Phone (02) 6125 2397
(02) 62821770 (AH)
Fax (02) 62486271
email [email protected]
PERSONAL BACKGROUND:
I am a Senior Fellow, and leader of the ‘Molecular Immunology and Immunopathology Group” at the John Curtin School for Medical Research (JCSMR) at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra. I joined the School in 1981. Over this 20 year period I have supervised 17 PhD scholars. From 1975 to 1979 I was myself a PhD student in the Department of Microbiology, JCSMR.
Abstract from the paper:
Recently the Australian National University has entered a very different arrangement to commercialize speculative discoveries, which has the potential to fundamentally alter and degrade universities. The sanction by the ANU of the establishment of Biotron has in effect just done that for the John Curtin School of Medical Research.
This private company (the ANU has 7% equity) was set up in the absence of any ethical guidelines. In contrast to most private or public universities overseas (see Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Howard Hughes Foundation to name a few) the ANU allowed four group leaders of the JCSMR (and their wives) to own shares in Biotron via allocation to them of a total of over 8.6 million dollars worth of shares.
These group leaders are principal researchers in the company in control of experimental design and execution which will dramatically influence the share price while on public-funded salaries in the ANU. This colossal conflict of interest seems not to have registered within the management of the ANU or with the researchers.
Biotron made extensive use of the general reputation of the JCSMR in promoting its share offer. This reputation was built by previous staff (including 2 Nobel Prize winners) and present staff other than those who are benefiting financially from the float. Finally, the ANU failed to have the science reviewed to any meaningful extent. The ANU should have insisted that the science that it is backing in Biotron be peer reviewed with the same rigor as is necessary to obtain funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council or the Australian Research Council. To add insult to injury the ANU advertised erroneously on the ANU’s official web side
that the group headed by the Research Director of Biotron had a cure for AIDS! 
This coincided with the float of Biotron.
Biotron has negotiated exclusive rights to commercialize inventions coming from the JCSMR. This exclusiveness will infringe the right of scientist not associated with Biotron to carry out research in areas Biotron deems to be within their rights.
With such a large part of the JCSMR’s research effort being curtailed by commercial secrecy, meaningful free scientific exchange has ceased within the School. This infringes the fundamental principle of the public having “the right to know” new information generated by expenditure of their tax dollars.
In addition, a most worrying aspect of the agreement Biotron has with the ANU is the lack of protection of post graduate students. Again unlike most overseas universities, the ANU does not protect Ph.D. students from commercial exploitation.
The work of one of the Biotron projects is almost exclusively carried out by a Ph.D. student. His ability to discuss his research and to publish is severely constrained.
I believe there are such fundamental flaws in the agreement between the ANU and Biotron which are causing immense damage to both the reputation of the ANU and the research environment of the JCSMR, that immediate changes to the ANU/Biotron set up are necessary. ANU is responsible to Parliament under the ANU act. Parliament through their representatives on Council of the ANU should initiate an urgent review, and initiate changes to rectify the Biotron/ANU mess.
Anyway, read into any of that as you wish!
As for the original prospectus "review" :
http://www.biotron.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Biotron_assirt_review.pdf
I read the following in the prospectus "review" the time frames to commercial market:
My question is, is Virion the now BIT255??
Virion (C9)
Antiviral HIV Ion Channel Platform 2003
Ross River Fever Ion Channel Platform 2003
Barmah Forest Fever Ion Channel Platform 2005
Dengue Fever Ion Channel Platform 2006
Have any made it to commercialisation?
What about any off these:?
C-Test - CT1 Diagnostic Cancer Detection Cancer technology 2002
C-Test - CT2 Cancer Identification Cancer technology 2003
Virion (C9) Antiviral HIV Ion Channel Platform 2003
Ross River Fever Ion Channel Platform 2003
Barmah Forest Fever Ion Channel Platform 2005
Dengue Fever Ion Channel Platform 2006
Hypoxion Treat for Hypoxia* Treatment Ion Channel Platform 2005
Prophylactic Ion Channel Platform 2007
**ion CNS agents Anaesthetic Ion Channel Platform 2005
Tranquiliser Ion Channel Platform 2006
Anti-epileptics Ion Channel Platform 2007
Muscion Ryanodine Receptor Heart Ion Channel Platform 2006
Malignant Hyperthermia Ion Channel Platform 2006
Insecticide Ion Channel Platform 2006
GeneTrans Gene Therapy Adjunct to Chemotherapy Cancer technology 2007
Are any of the board still around:?
Board of Directors
Michael Hoy Non-Executive Chairman na Dep. CEO and Ed.Director of John Fairfax Ltd Dr Noel Chambers Managing Director BSc(Hons),PhD Bus. Dev. Manager with Promega Corp Ltd.
Prof. Peter Gage Executive-Research Director MB, ChB, PhD, DSc Current Prof. of Physiology at JCSMR
Dr Michael Hirshorn Non-Executive Director MBA, MB, BS Co-founder of Cochlear, Founding dir. ResMed
Bruce Hundertmark Non-Executive Director BE, Bec MD of merchant bank IMFC Ltd.
Peter Scott Non-Executive Director na Currently chairman of Scott's Acorn Pty Ltd
Other Senior Management
Peter Nightingale CFO and Company Secretary BEc , ACA Various fin roles in in Aust, USA and Europe
Neil White Operations Manager DipAp Sci (Agric), MAICD CSIRO, ICI, and ANU
Prof. Robert Seamark Ind.Research Advisor BAgSc, PhD Ass.Prof of Obst. & Gyn at Uni. Adelaide Researchers Prof.Philip Board GeneTrans Project Leader BSc (Hons), PhD Current Head of Molecular Medicine (JCSMR) Prof.Angela Dulhunty Muscion Project Leader BSc (Hons), PhD, DSc Prof. Of Bioch. and Molecular Biology (JCSMR) Dr Gary Ewart Virion (& C9) Project Leader BSc(Hons), PhD Disc. the anti-HIV-1 activities of C9 at JCSMR Prof Christopher Parish C-Test Project BAgrSci, PhD Head of Immunology & Cell Biology (JCSMR)
I think Nightingale is still the secretary, correct?
This was interesting and perhaps still exists:
Weaknesses
Negotiation/Out-licensing skills with third parties untested. An issue for Biotron is its limited experience with negotiations of out-licenses to third party developers. A risk in licensing out at early stages of drug development is the transfer of earnings upside to the potential licensee. Typically, the earlier a compound is licensed in its drug development cycle the less valuable the revenues derived from these licensing arrangements.
Top 20 shareholders POST IPO, any still there?
TABLE 3. TOTAL SHAREHOLDERS (POST IPO)
Shareholder Shares % Holding
ANU 4,500,000 7%
Professor Peter Gage 9,500,000 15%
Professor and Mrs Philip Board 2,600,000 4%
Professor Graeme Cox 200,000 0%
Professor Angela Dulhunty 2,600,000 4%
Professor and Mrs Christopher Parish 2,600,000 4%
Dr Gary Ewart 500,000 1%
Michael Hoy 1,000,000 2%
Peter Scott 4,250,000 7%
Gail Scott 4,249,550 7%
Scott's Acorn Pty Ltd 450 0%
MIS Corporate Pty Ltd 5,000,000 8%
Canberra Business Development Fund 1,000,000 2%
Carrington Services Pty Limited 2,000,000 3%
New Shareholders 24,000,000 38%
Total Shares on Issue 64,000,000
100% Source: Biotron Prospectus
Project risk associated with in-vivo assessment of C9.
Biotron’s lead antiviral compound,
Virion (C9) has been shown to interfere with viral replication when tested on mammalian cells in vitro. We note further assessment of the compound “in-vivo” represents a significant project risk.
