I really don't see how it's feasible to split the company in...

I really don't see how it's feasible to split the company in two, each targeting different applications. Zantrene will be inhibiting FTO and having cardio-protective effects regardless of what application it is intended to be used for. And once it's approved for one indication, as far as I know there's nothing that can be done to prevent it being used off label for others. I think this is one reason that it is extremely important to get the 'take-to-market' strategy correct, as that will influence pricing for every indication after that. As I understand it (at least from the reports from people who have spoken to him) it seems that DCB is keenly aware of this and I think this is the sort of thing where his experience will really shine through.

Are there any examples of a company that has split into two, or two separate unrelated companies, developing the same drug towards different indications?

However, if there is a new drug or drugs that come out of Pillar 3, splitting off Zantrene and Pillar 3 into separate companies would certainly be more feasible and possibly a good way forward.

In terms of NASDAQ listing, it's possible but it may not be a panacea to the ailing share price. There are plenty of other companies that have tried this in the past and it hasn't had the desired effect. Having a Nasdaq listing may make it easier to access capital in the US, but hopefully we won't need too much more capital if we're looking at a transaction instead of progressing Zantrene into phase III ourselves. Being listed only on the ASX certainly doesn't prevent any investment or transaction etc. activity from occurring, so we're probably better off if management spend their time focusing on that instead.