Hi DufraneThe comment you heard from the CEO at the...

Hi Dufrane

The comment you heard from the CEO at the AGM regarding a clinical licensing deal in Japan: ..."At AGM he said it was down to one and in fact was always only ever one" (emphasis added) seems really incongruous when compared with the purported statement quoted in the Biotech Daily article ... "CEO John Martin says Regeneus was interested in five potential licencing partners, whichwas whittled to three, all of which are currently in due diligence".

While it might be possible to explain the incongruity, by suggesting that the journalist Tim Boreham misunderstood and therefore inadvertently misrepresented what he was being told to him by John Martin for the 16 November article, that seems especially unlikely when you consider this statement from RGS itself in an ASX release on 3 July 2018: ... "The company had disclosed that it anticipated completing the collaboration before the end of 30 June but discussions have taken longer than originally anticipated. Part of this delay is due to there being several interested parties in active discussions for licensing Progenza" (emphasis added).

So, I'm a bit confused and wonder whether anyone else who attended the AGM can confirm that the CEO said that it "was always only ever one" party in the frame for a clinical licence in Japan.

This might seem like nit-picking if there is at least one party definitely in the frame, but I was quite a bit more excited about the prospects for RGS from a scenario where a number of parties were competing for a clinical licence. 

Seemingly mixed messages from a company are the bane of a retail shareholder's life when trying to undertake your own due diligence. So, I will be most interested if anyone else can shed light on the matter, including from TDA if the follow-up you flagged with the company is able to clarify things. 

zeno9