Hi JojoYou're correct that there is no practical way Biota could...

Hi Jojo
You're correct that there is no practical way Biota could market LANI themselves. However, as I said in my post the amount of up front payment and royalty is proportional to status of the compound. The more a company develops a compound the higher the payment and royalty. In this case it would seem that a very good argument could be made for an investment in development to have a high probability of pay-off.

As to your point on DS The very fact that DS has decided to look for a Partner and not take it on themselves for the ROW should make us all think twice why, and about the complexities and logistics of getting the product to the markets.
That is not a fact and my understanding is that it is wrong.

- DS holds Japan rights and must share royalties with Biota. DS decided to develop LANI and have consequently decided to manufacture and develop it.
- Biota holds rights to RoW and must share royalties with DS. Biota has not developed LANI for RoW and does not appear to want to. It is up to Biota to either develop it or find a partner to do so.

While Biota may not be able to manufacture and certainly not in a position to market LANI, they are a drug development company and could add value by developing LANI. Which in a nut shell is my argument.

Of course that's my opinion and there may be other issues. I hope the current strategy and reasons are clearly articulated at the AGM if not before.

A business like Biota is about capital allocation. Return on the greenest dollar. LANI would appear to have an excellent reward to risk profile for an investment. So either:
- there are details that management have not shared or I have missed that changes that reward/risk profile,
- management have better opportunities for our cash
- or as is often the case in business, management are wondering about this thing called capital allocation, but haven't quite figured it out yet.