THOUGHTS ON STATE OF PLAY

Yes 12 months back the goal was to have a deal done by now.

Earlier " '17 will be our year. "  To be fair, the stated intention was to get a COMPETITIVE deal.

Similarly the current wording is to get THE RIGHT DEAL. (For reasons I'll add GET THE DEAL RIGHT.)  This is sincere.

Perhaps we underestimated the extent fear following the mesh disgrace would impact negotiations.  Now I imagine a CEO telling shareholders 'by the way I'm spending many millions on a new UI product'.  Fear, not the product, is the problem.

Also, I've said previously our lack of sales would be a negative in negotiations; maybe I underestimated this too.

Repeated comments from the AGM on 'full value' & 'the right deal' give me the belief low ball offer(s) factoring fear and no sales success have been given; and rightly the Board has not accepted selling us short.  We know Navigant, experienced, advising & acting on our behalf, set a price range.  They want their commission, and believe they can get a higher cut from higher offers.

Confidence in this is suggested by additional comments like 'will be a V4', 'getting tax advice', '...quality system allows more flexibility ... in the future'.

I can't get my head around this 'new strategy', but share my thoughts for others to mull over. 

I find interesting the reference to 'after discussions with our banker/S.  I assume that's Navigant & whoever provides our 20 mill overdraft (CBA?).  Do they intend spending say 10 mill on a large ANZ advertising & marketing campaign; to demonstrate commercial success?  Do we remain the manufacturer for the medium term; while a partner markets? 

The decision to have a local manufacturer is strategy connected I believe. Discussions with this company seem to have started about the time offers/feedback would have been coming in.  Note the reference to 'cultural & legal environment'. 

We are a less litigious nation.  We have become the Registered Manufacturer with FDA.  Liability shifts from a partner to us; it seems.

Will IP & technology be somehow dealt with separately?

A license is far more likely than a sale; less capital risk for a partner, liability stays with us, and we get 'full value'.

Nor can I get clarity on ISO 13485.  I thought it was essential.  I don't know if it's connected with the new plan.

Yet we do have a full quality system (QSI); which is 'also designed to be ISO 13485 compliant'.  My confusion is worsened by 'INITIALLY designed to be QSR compliant, to allow re-entry to U.S. asap' & 'may pursue ISO 13485 in'19'. Maybe an intended partner thinks it's not needed?

My main concerns.

This is the last throw of the dice; I don't have clarity so can't get a feel for outcome; making it high risk for me, (reduced by the presence of Navigant, and increasing value of burette).  Inability to trust, too often, what management says; for example the explanation for burette should definitely have been provided years ago.  Changing statistics.  I don't want a deal with a Med Device Co. that won't sell otc or online (unlikely).

Navigant has probably already updated the short list of interested players; then it's offers & negotiations, plenty of lawyer back 'n forth, then a HOA, then it's finalised. IF a reasonable offer is made, xmas shutdown accounted for, we are talking only months.