(Total Views: 892)
Posted On: 01/26/2022 6:35:27 PM
Post# of 148887
More tea leaves. As originally reported on YMB and later confirmed and discussed by several well respected members here, CYDY has withdrawn 3 job openings for positions in clinical trial management. I agree that this is a development worth pondering.
I start from the proposition that the Amarex fiasco created the need to incur the attendant costs of staffing such positions in order to competently monitor the performance of CROs in future trials and to interact with FDA employees re trial protocols, etc. Moreover, based on the wording of Tuesday's PR, these staff positions would certainly appear to be consistent with seeking regulatory approvals for LL going forward.
It has been suggested that the 3 positions could have already been filled. That's certainly possible and, if so, there's nothing to see here. But it seems a bit odd, at least to me, that CYDY would wait until all 3 positions filled before removing the openings from its website or that all 3 positions filled almost simultaneously.
Another proffered theory is that CYDY can no longer afford these hires even though the jobs would seem to be a necessary expenditure going forward. Given its apparent financial situation, I could see eliminating one or even two of the positions, but not all three, when the need would be so totally consistent with the goal of future regulatory approvals (based on clinical trial outcomes).
The reasoning set forth in the above 2 paragraphs leaves me with the "CYDY no longer needs to fill these (necessary) positions" explanation as the most credible. That explanation would be consistent with the goal of regulatory approvals achieved through a partnership in which the partner oversees the necessary clinical trials. It would also be consistent with Dr Kelly not presenting virtually (as scheduled) at the large biopharma partnership search conference last week. And, although much more of a stretch, it would also be consistent with the lack of need to fill these 3 positions (or to find a new CEO) in the event of an imminent buy out.
By the way, from a review of Tanya's professional bio, it looks to me that she has the chops, while also relying on the services of Sidley, to capably negotiate either a partnership or BO agreement. Her bio also indicates that she has experience serving as an expert witness in securities litigation. Having retained and examined dozens of expert witnesses during my trial career, that tells me that Tanya will very likely be an excellent and persuasive communicator in whichever circumstances such a trait will prove useful in the future.
I start from the proposition that the Amarex fiasco created the need to incur the attendant costs of staffing such positions in order to competently monitor the performance of CROs in future trials and to interact with FDA employees re trial protocols, etc. Moreover, based on the wording of Tuesday's PR, these staff positions would certainly appear to be consistent with seeking regulatory approvals for LL going forward.
It has been suggested that the 3 positions could have already been filled. That's certainly possible and, if so, there's nothing to see here. But it seems a bit odd, at least to me, that CYDY would wait until all 3 positions filled before removing the openings from its website or that all 3 positions filled almost simultaneously.
Another proffered theory is that CYDY can no longer afford these hires even though the jobs would seem to be a necessary expenditure going forward. Given its apparent financial situation, I could see eliminating one or even two of the positions, but not all three, when the need would be so totally consistent with the goal of future regulatory approvals (based on clinical trial outcomes).
The reasoning set forth in the above 2 paragraphs leaves me with the "CYDY no longer needs to fill these (necessary) positions" explanation as the most credible. That explanation would be consistent with the goal of regulatory approvals achieved through a partnership in which the partner oversees the necessary clinical trials. It would also be consistent with Dr Kelly not presenting virtually (as scheduled) at the large biopharma partnership search conference last week. And, although much more of a stretch, it would also be consistent with the lack of need to fill these 3 positions (or to find a new CEO) in the event of an imminent buy out.
By the way, from a review of Tanya's professional bio, it looks to me that she has the chops, while also relying on the services of Sidley, to capably negotiate either a partnership or BO agreement. Her bio also indicates that she has experience serving as an expert witness in securities litigation. Having retained and examined dozens of expert witnesses during my trial career, that tells me that Tanya will very likely be an excellent and persuasive communicator in whichever circumstances such a trait will prove useful in the future.
(28)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
