Jun. 9 at 1:18 PM
$LAB I continue to believe existing LAB shareholders got the short end of the stick here. For years we were told Mass Cytometry, Imaging Mass Cytometry, Microfluidics, the installed customer base, and the IP portfolio were strategic assets with significant long-term value. Yet those assets now appear to be valued as an uncertain CVR while existing LAB shareholders are diluted to just 16% of the combined company.
What about the ~
$1 billion in NOLs? What about the newer patents and technology improvements that extend beyond the original patent estate? What about the recurring consumables revenue, customer relationships, and potential strategic value to a larger life sciences tools company?
If these assets truly have little value, why were they promoted as differentiated platforms for years? If they do have value, why aren't existing shareholders retaining direct ownership through a spinout or separate entity?
