Recent email correspondence with MAST CFO:
Brandi,
> I've been in heavy discussions all day with numerous retail investors similar to myself regarding the potential ramifications/repercussions of the Baxter acquisition of AESrX for their Phase 2 Sickle Cell drug.
> My group is on both sides of yesterday's news as to positive/negative for Mast.
> Your insights on this topic would be of importance to our group. Should we be concerned that this big pharma company passed over our Phase 3 drug for a Competitor in the SCD space that is far behind us in the trial/approval process?
> Thank you for your timely response to this question.
sincerely,
Xxxxxx
Hi Xxxxxx,
>
> I'm glad you follow sickle cell news beyond that which comes from Mast. It's validating when global pharmaceutical companies get involved in a disease, but when terms are not disclosed it may indicate the seller got the short end of the deal. For several reasons, we don't think hemoglobin stabilization is the best way to treat sickle cell disease, but there are many reasons why big pharma might do a deal and we likely will never know why Baxter did this one.
>
> It's sometimes said that the three reasons a small company does a deal is for money, capabilities, or out of fear their drug might fail. But as you know, Mast has ~$50M in cash (as of 3/31/14), 25 employees, and we believe our data is the best in the field, so we have leverage in our partnering discussions. If we do elect to sign a pharma deal, it will be on terms that we believe are in the interest of our shareholders, the drug, and patients.
>
> Best regards, Brandi
