SMH commentary 18 June

http://www.smh.com.au/business/true...c-mesoblast-will-succeed-20160617-gplayx.html

Sure, Waslitz = Thorney = 5.2% shareholder, but the stated reasons for Teva going are unambiguous.  And while there might be some ambiguity about the placing of quote marks and whether it is Waslitz or Kolbert saying:

But as Teva shifted its focus to generic drugs, its decision to quit funding Mesoblast's heart treatment was unsurprising, he (= Waslitz) said, and now Mesoblast has little choice but to pursue the drug's development.

"I thought Teva would walk two years ago when its leadership changed," said Jason Kolbert, analyst with Maxim Group in the US.

"The fact that it didn't is testament to Silviu, Teva did not decide this on the research data [outcome]. It was credible when Silviu said the decision was a strategic move by Teva.

"The outlook for Mesoblast with its chronic heart failure treatment hasn't changed. What has changed is it has to finance it. Also it now has 100 per cent equity in the program."

(bolds, italics and parentheses are mine)

The first paragraph of the quote is Waslitz.  The second is Kolbert.  I hope the third is also Kolbert.  That would be a huge turnaround by Kolbert from his conference call sourness.

Thorney's Waislitz argues the heart program is central to Mesoblast's future fortunes. But how to fund it?

The science is still as good as it was.  Clearly, as stated by M Schuster and posited by Lodge and Thorney, Teva's departure cannot be taken as commentary on the CHF program.  Can't say it more plainly.

The sp rout has been a colossal overreaction except, as warned by @madamswer and others and detailed in Lodge and Waslitz, MSB now has to fund a very expensive program.  If an arrangement with a cardiac savvy partner is executed we'll be back on track and better than with Teva.  We can only wait and see where the $ come from and what it will cost.