Broadfin might be behind the recent changes

because they have increased their holdings to almost 10%, and because they have an activist style. The threat of open warfare was probably averted: they got 2 board members and a CFO.

Broadfin probably got their extra shares from Baker Bros, who have sold out of BOTA (at a major loss). So have RA, but I think Krensavage picked up their shares. So, some rationalisation at the upper end of the register to balance the disparate small (Aussie) end.

I notice Mr. Plumb had a significant vote registered against him for re-election in the AGM, and I need to presume he is holding out to control the large cashbox that is BOTA.

Maybe Broadfin will find out what is happening with the LANI ROW rights for us. Or why the company wants to raise $25 million more at any price.

The only value in BOTA is the cash and the LANI rights.

I think that at this point we probably have to put our faith in Broadfin, rather than the management and its aligned board, to represent shareholder interests. This might mean more activism, if the new board members and executive are isolated.

The main problem I see is that many major healthcare institutional funds have exited BOTA's register. They are unlikely to rejoin the company any time soon, especially if the majority of the current management and Board are mostly intact, so it's hard to see where the share price increase will come from.

The only solution to that problem is to sell the company. And that needs to happen before the cash is drained.

25 million dollar capital raising

are these guys for real?

the distributors' deal allow them to sell those shares anyway they want - including on market!!! The fact they are using these guys and these methods would suggest that they may have burnt their bridges with hedge funds and reputable brokers.

this is the opposite of an on market share buyback. Like a giant put option placed by the company on its own shares.

It might be some kind of bizarre insurance policy to cover their salaries in the event any, or all, of their trials flop. What is an extra 25 million meant to do otherwise? So, rather than those trials producing some much needed upward price tension, we will have no share price rise into those top line reports due to the dilution and the fact that the distributors will sell into any strength for their 3% commission.

Raising cash into this weakened market for BOTA is a complete joke, and especially when they have spent a year boasting of their healthy cash balance.

sadly, i think they have completely crossed the line into penny dreadful territory.

I cannot believe the major shareholders are allowing this.

I wish someone would take them over.

cash burn doesn't hurt everyone

Biota Pharmaceuticals, Inc. releases salary data. CEO sees compensation rise 110%

Biota Pharmaceuticals, Inc. just filed its annual proxy statement, which details the salary information of its key executives. In 2015, the company's CEO made 1,479,427.The table is included below:

Name and Principal Position		Year		Salary ($)				Bonus ($)				Stock Awards ($) (1)				Option Awards ($) (1)				All Other Compensation ($)				Total ($)
Joseph M. Patti (3)		2015			477,000				431,250				—				797,098				32,829	(4)			1,479,427
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director		2014			408,000				—				120,156				149,375				25,995	(4)			703,526
		2013			255,385				37,500				291,660				853,596				17,244	(4)			1,455,385
Russell H. Plumb (2)		2015			318,750				172,500				98,000				—				30,080	(5)			878,080
Executive Chairman and Director		2014			525,000				—				192,250				239,000				28,256	(5)			984,506
		2013			335,192				60,000				583,321				1,365,753				19,431	(5)			2,363,697

The above information was disclosed in a filing to the SEC.

Board changes

Well, one or several of the major shareholders have flexed their muscle and appointed 2 new Board members and asked Mr. Fox to resign. They are both biotech execs and board members and although they appear to be bona fide, increasing the size of this particular company's Board is nuts. The two new members don't give control, as the current members and executive members were all selected by Mr. Plumb.

Incidentally, Mr. Plumb sold a parcel of shares just before these changes were announced. And, he managed to sell them for 40 cents above the market price -lucky guy.

The lack of news on LANI becomes more noticeable. How it is possible to let this compound slip away is just beyond comprehension. Another northen hemisphere winter trial season passes, another year less patent life.

So, they pay 17 million for a antiviral gel Phase 1 tested on a couple of dozen patients in a deal done in a matter of months, while a compound like LANI has sat for over a year.

FY result press release: guess what word doesn't appear in the release

if you said INAVIR - correct!

Not once.

Inavir has been disappeared.

Some insight into the relenza patent issue

From the interview listed as news today


TLSR: Are you doing anything to rework Relenza (zanamivir) to extend the patent?
JP: No.
TLSR: But you've filed a request for a rehearing in a pending patent related to Relenza. Can you tell me a little more about that?
JP: It's interesting. This goes back to a 1994 patent application that was filed specific to the method of treatment by inhalation of Relenza. That patent was issued—and has since expired—in every country where an application was filed, except the U.S. In the United States, for whatever reason, we've never been able to get claims allowed for that application.
The issue stems from the patent office examiners' view of the claims as "obvious." We've tried for years, through expert witnesses, to make the counterargument—that in 1994 it wasn't obvious that an inhaled neuraminidase inhibitor would be effective for the treatment of influenza.

"We have extensive patent coverage on composition of matter, method of use and method of manufacturing for all of our clinical programs."

That's gone back and forth. We most recently filed an appeal because the previous brief was denied. Now we're waiting to see what the patent office comes back with. If we're denied again, we still have a few legal avenues to pursue. We'll work with GlaxoSmithKline to determine whether we pursue them.
If we were to allow that application to be abandoned, and did nothing more to get the claims allowed, we would no longer receive royalties in the U.S. for Relenza.


My comment:

This is interesting, because investors were always told that there is specific IP and patentability in the compound-inhaler combination.

This states that it isn;t the case: that the delivery device is obvious, and doesn;t form a new patent.

3 issues:

1. I need to look back, but I'm pretty sure investors in Biota were always told (or assumed) that there was a patent for the combined compound - device

2. Glaxo could have pursued a change in delivery device at any time because it was not part of the patent. Not sure what FDA would have thought though, but if inhalation was obvious, then maybe a few extension studies with an MDI rather than the idiotic diskhaler might have been adequate

3. That the LANI compound - device combination may also not be patentable. The patent may extend only to the compound. Do we know this? If so, it means the patent clock is further advanced than previously thought.

Latest update

I have been away.
And for disclosure, I sold the majority of my holding since the last post, although it was to raise capital for other matters. I am still holding and would have held the whole amount due to the below. As you know it breached the 2.00 floor briefly. And why not, the Anaconda deal is such nonsense.

As I have mentioned before, the only value proposition in BTA is the value in Inavir.
We got a little more sense of that value in CSLs latest deal with Biocryst for permavir.
That is worthy of mention on a few fronts.

1. CSL has established influenza as a separate arm of the business bioCSL with its own executive director. Until now, it held the vaccines business. CSL is a major biopharmaceutical with its roots in Australia and has played big in plasma, vaccines and also developed the HPV vaccine. It has learnt through its activity in plasma that global market domination pays dividends.

2. It's strange that Biocryst would come up on CSLs radar. And the price it paid for permavir IV is higher than I would have expected. Biocrysts share price has done well.

3. The influenza treatment market is undervalued, and fragmented. No-one markets it well because they fear being labelled anti vaccine, even though with influenza vaccine that's a nearly reasonable proposition. That fragmentation leads to value, as we know looking at Biota's SP.

So, the CSL - Biocryst deal does put a better value on inavir.
It also signals a move by CSL into influenza treatment, albeit IV.
Further, CSL would already know Biota and probably watched with amusement at its value destruction over the decade. The attempted extension of relenza patent might be part of a wider deal.

Whether CSL is looking at inavir remains to be seen.
But if so, why look at raising more capital, as they seem to be preparing to do? The potential issue of another tranche of shares being issued by the company might be linked. Even in the US biotech bubble, its so hard to see them raising more capital to trial inavir themselves when they have burnt many bridges with capital markets and because the patent clock on inavir is ticking so fast.If some of their recent major holders think they should go it alone, and will back them, then quite frankly they are nuts.

So, in summary: if you think CSL has an interest in inavir, prospects might be brighter. Of course, that's difficult to assess unless you are an insider.
But if they announce a new capital raise to trial inavir themselves, it's good night from me. In that event I will sell the rest of my holdings.