In my opinion the following words in the Open Briefing released on the same day as BTA's half yearly report cannot be discounted. Maybe they led to a savage BTA sell off, knocking around 30% off the share price in a few days.
"Obtaining funding for the programme of clinical studies and related manufacturing and good manufacturing practice (GMP) approvals we've got to undertake in the West is central to potential licensees extracting value from Inavir. There's interest in the product, but the level of interest is dependent on whether or not there's agency funding for the Western trials."
Now who's told BTA CEO Peter Cook there's minimal value from Inavir without BTA first obtaining the agency funding? Based on the above words in the Open Briefing, presumably the potential licensees, when of course they were taking a tough bargaining position to get the best deal they can from BTA for their own company.
Does Peter Cook believe the above? My assessment is possibly yes. Otherwise why release what looks like a tough bargaining position by potential unnamed licensees to the market?
The market was clearly rattled imo and now probably believes that:
Without Biota obtaining that multi multi million dollars funding from the Americans for "the programme of clinical studies and related manufacturing and good manufacturing practice" - and why should they give it to a foreign company - the "potential licensees" have told Biota that they will NOT be able to "extract... value from Inavir."
That as the "the level of interest is dependent on whether or not there's agency funding for the Western trials" should BTA get a deal without that agency funding then there probably won't be much left in it for BTA.
I'm still shaking my head over this. I feel sorry for loyal BTA shareholders. (I'm never a loyal shareholder.)
Do tough bargaining positions by unnamed potential licensees need to even be disclosed to the market at this point in time?
BTA Price at posting:
$1.07 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
