Thanks, learning. I was actually invested in Progen (Brisbane area?) about 10 years ago, and being in the States I contributed to my timeslot in that 24 hours-a-day cast of YMB characters. It was late in my Progen ownership that I heard of Prana. I've followed them sporadically ever since, but only recently bought in.
The potential for Prana seems significant. Either a partner or a few catalysts followed by a decent offering would provide the resources to exploit that potential. We'll see if they get either.
I prefer when management (of any company) keeps partnership talk to a minimum. That they state that a partnership is the strategy for CCX-140 (and vircirnon), and give general updates at the quarterlies, is good enough for me. These negotiations can take some time and follow a winding road. The landscape can change, both for the parties and in the space into which a given drug would potentially launch. With these changes, proposed terms can change. I, too, am waiting for a deal, or deals. But I'm not too surprised it's taken this long.
In light of your comments, I think one important aspect of Icagen as an analogy is that, even with multiple failures, Pfizer saw value in targeting ion channels, and therefore saw value in Icagen's platform and compound library. Trial design, indication or specific target may lead to failure, but the broader class of targets can still have great potential. Similarly, despite Lpath's failures (to what degree still TBD), Pfizer probably sees value in targeting bioactive lipids, and therefore values Lpath's platform for targeting them and the resulting portfolio of molecules they're starting to develop. The platform has value, even if iSONEP or ASONEP never reach the market.
As far as what Pfizer did, I think they did extend/restructure the deal once. Ultimately, after Icagen was down in the dumps following several failures it was sub-$1. That was 2010. In 2011 Pfizer bought them for $6.
Icagen had an ongoing collaboration with Pfizer starting in 2007. Their platform involved ion-channel blockade. They had a string of failures during a 3 year period but Pfizer stayed with them. They are now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.
The point is that even with the platform failures, Pfizer still saw potential. Who knows what will happen, but it just lends some credence to the notion that Lpath is not necessarily doomed.