Investor Update, page-185

Now why do not hold onto that positive thought and give management at least the opportunity to announce their funding deal?

Management had two options to address the financial situation, IMO.

1,
Raise capital with offerings to existing shareholders at 20% of market value.
Move into negotiations being financially independent for a number of years ( after a lengthy battle with existing shareholders who might not approve the deal ).
Question is, do we need years long independence?
We do have the ability to treat Anteobind and Anteocoat as two different corporate entities, allowing us to achieve early revenue by allowing possibly exclusivity/ partial ownership/ upfront payments for either, then followed by milestones.
There are many options here which the current broker report did not take into account to simplify matters and go with the most conservative estimate possible, after which our target price would still be surprisingly 2.9 to 4 cents.


2,
Equity partner to facilitate funding for ongoing partnering activities and product development.
That would enable management to negotiate with partners in a way that they also can present financial ability and stability.
Premium prices for equity partners do usually occur when IP is so overwhelmingly strong and market outlook
very positive that such a move is in both parties interest.
That equity partner, even though they might agree to enter on a premium, would still want to achieve a low
average price to decide on the premium, in order to maximise their position.
That is what has taken place ever since our internal update shared by management stating improved cycle
life for our anodes, IMO.


One bitter pill management had to swallow, no matter what.
Their financial position after Diasource left them no choice.

A premium placement ( additionally to accumulated shares, remember that price went up on volume, down on thin trade ) would be by far the more attractive option for shareholders.

all in my humble opinion
Surges