This probably will add to your questions instead of answering any of them, so apologies for that. It's hard to focus when there are so many balls in the air.
re "Signed agreements in August, do we really think a deal can be done in under 30 days?"
There's a difference between these things that might be worth considering:
"The Company signed a non-binding term sheet in August 2018 with a global pharmaceutical company for the licensing/rights to Brilacidin for treating oral mucositis and inflammatory bowel diseases. Initial payments, milestone payments and royalties are being negotiated in accordance with the non-binding term sheet. The pharmaceutical company is now engaged in further due diligence. Management can offer no assurances that the parties will enter into a binding definitive agreement."
"(c) “BD Agreement” means a significant licensing arrangement with a pharmaceutical company that will include an initial (“up-front”) payment to the Company in an amount in the double-digits millions of dollars and will arrange for such pharmaceutical company to undertake the continuing development of the Company’s Brilacidin compound in the indication of Oral Mucositis, including the conducting and funding of clinical trials aiming towards the filing of an NDA."
The highlighted language doesn't appear in the term sheet description. So the obvious difference....the inclusion of IBD in the Term Sheet...isn't the only difference. So it may be easier to consider the two "agreements" separately. Theoretically at least a BD Agreement can be made by 9/30 that has nothing to do with the Term Sheet, but it seems very unlikely.
Essentially the Term Sheet has taken the place of the BD Agreement in terms of the "deal" proposals that investors might want to be thinking about (instead of being considered in addition to the BD Agreement).
If that's true, and the latest Aspire Milestone Agreement can't reasonably be expected to produce any meaningful cash, where will ANY cash be coming from? It's my understanding that that agreement precludes the sale of shares by IPIX except under the terms of that agreement until 9/30. There's probably enough cash laying around to stay afloat until then*** and it's my understanding that the "old" agreement can then be used for share sales as long as the pps stays above a quarter.
There was a fuzzy area between the existing Aspire Agreement and the Milestone Agreement that had a lie stuck in the middle of it that remains unexplained. We STILL don't have a filing that explains that first $2M for 8M deal...no "Agreement" by which that transaction was made. That shouldn't have happened. Could it happen again?
***
"And we are waiting on paying off CRO for phase 2b data."
I think I've seen enough of the 10-K to be convinced that we haven't been told exactly how much "paying off CRO" involves. I know that a poster was told privately, and reported here, that the reason for the first $2M raise was this:
"We sold stock at a fixed price. Albeit low but we needed funds for production of Brilacidin for further studies and other clinical trial payables."
A second $2M was provided at some point in connection with the Milestone Agreement. That cash was included in the 6/30 cash balance of $2.4M.
So while we don't know how much was owed to the CRO initially we do know that the Company has raised $4M through share sales to Aspire since April 1 and still owes the CRO enough funds so that it appears they are withholding the P data.
Under the circumstances....which I believe include a very fundamental concern about the Company's ability to pay its bills....the fact that investors don't know these things pretty much speaks for itself:
1. How much is owed to the CRO?
2. Why haven't they been paid?
In other words, if it's only "due in part to cost overruns of the Phase 2b trial over and above the estimates provided by the contract organization, the Company has not made all payments to the research organization managing the trial", then WTF is the other parts(s)?
There's an underlying assumption (I guess) that paying the CRO and getting hold of the P data will result in the Company's ability to report results that will justify that drugs' valuation of millions or billions of dollars (depending on who you ask) and I sure don't know that and I don't think anyone does. I do believe that this black box warning issue that may result in unexpected costs and create an impediment to marketing the product has just been raised...no idea how long the Company has been aware of that or whether it is playing a part in this delay. The "adverse events" issue has been whack-a-moled every time someone has raised it here.
Too many questions. Hope you're not sorry you asked :o)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
