Frankly I have never seen that approach (massive influx of money on parallel path) successfully used in biotech. The parallel path is often not present at all or, if present, severely restricted by the company's IP. If there is an opportunity there at all, it's usually a limited and poor one.
That approach makes no sense in the vast majority of cases (all but where the company has left a sizable gap in IP protection)and if one is willing to use a massive influx of money it makes far more sense to just acquire the company. What rational CEO would want to spend a massive amount of money in what would be at the very least, a very hard fought battle when for the same amount of money he could get it unopposed?
The reality here is that BP is reluctant to take on risks and doesn't like to risk money until it sees hard data and it very strongly prefers data in late stage clinical trials. It would far rather pay the much higher price at that point than to take the far higher risk at an earlier stage.
BPs' fossilized organizational structures are highly toxic to innovation which is why they cannot develop ground breaking new drugs themselves. The same thing results in very poor performance at picking the winning new technologies at early stages.
If BP makes overtures it will be later rather than sooner. MUCH later. By which time NNVC should be in an excellent position to go it alone or, at the very least, just partner on a target or two (and preferably with someone OTHER than BP).
If I wanted to invest in BP (why, I cannot imagine!) I'd just invest in BP.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
