(Total Views: 622)
Posted On: 04/12/2023 1:04:10 PM
Post# of 148878
Re: chazzledazzle #134029
chazz: With all due respect, I am saying (opining actually) that, based on my assessment of the info divulged in the cc, an oncology related partnership (or BO) is the only attainable catalyst that would move the sp significantly (above 1.00) in 2023 and keep it there.
"Catalyst" is obviously a subjective term, the impact of which will vary by degree, much like the weight of favorable admissible evidence in a jury trial. For a trial lawyer, assessing which favorable pieces of evidence, among all that might be available, can carry sufficient weight with the jury to be outcome determinative, is critical to prevailing at verdict time.
If I define outcome determinative here as a catalyst driven sustainable sp above $1.00 occurring within 2023, I don't believe that any catalyst involving a management promotion or hires, a corporate rebranding, or that necessitates FDA good faith is likely in a timely manner, if at all. I am sanguine about the prospects for a favorable Amarex settlement in 2023, and that hopefully would give the sp a significant bump, perhaps over 1.00, but that benefit would likely be short term absent follow up news related to potential LL approval or revenue generation.
As stated above, these are merely my opinions based on the evidence admitted during the cc. I will read with considerable interest your cogent analysis of how you may expect any of the above referenced potential catalysts, including those necessitating FDA action, to substantially increase the sp in a lasting manner this year. And I hope to be persuaded by your reasoning.
Meanwhile, I am taking considerable solace from the cc silence re Keytruda for the reasons specified in my earlier post. To rehash my analogy to a trial lawyer seeking to identify which evidence has the potential to be outcome determinative, and assuming that a Keytruda/LL related partnership would be a very positive outcome from a catalyst perspective, I am pinning my optimism on the expectation that Cyrus would never have mentioned Keytruda in the Biospace article unless he had solid reason to believe that the combo data results were highly favorable. If that is so, then Merck would be blind (given Keytruda's looming patent cliff), not to expeditiously pursue a phase 3 trial combining LL with Keytruda The timing of further details, however, would likely be under Merck's control.
This is why I believe that the Keytruda silence was the most positive aspect of the cc -- maybe even outcome determinative for LL and CYDY.
"Catalyst" is obviously a subjective term, the impact of which will vary by degree, much like the weight of favorable admissible evidence in a jury trial. For a trial lawyer, assessing which favorable pieces of evidence, among all that might be available, can carry sufficient weight with the jury to be outcome determinative, is critical to prevailing at verdict time.
If I define outcome determinative here as a catalyst driven sustainable sp above $1.00 occurring within 2023, I don't believe that any catalyst involving a management promotion or hires, a corporate rebranding, or that necessitates FDA good faith is likely in a timely manner, if at all. I am sanguine about the prospects for a favorable Amarex settlement in 2023, and that hopefully would give the sp a significant bump, perhaps over 1.00, but that benefit would likely be short term absent follow up news related to potential LL approval or revenue generation.
As stated above, these are merely my opinions based on the evidence admitted during the cc. I will read with considerable interest your cogent analysis of how you may expect any of the above referenced potential catalysts, including those necessitating FDA action, to substantially increase the sp in a lasting manner this year. And I hope to be persuaded by your reasoning.
Meanwhile, I am taking considerable solace from the cc silence re Keytruda for the reasons specified in my earlier post. To rehash my analogy to a trial lawyer seeking to identify which evidence has the potential to be outcome determinative, and assuming that a Keytruda/LL related partnership would be a very positive outcome from a catalyst perspective, I am pinning my optimism on the expectation that Cyrus would never have mentioned Keytruda in the Biospace article unless he had solid reason to believe that the combo data results were highly favorable. If that is so, then Merck would be blind (given Keytruda's looming patent cliff), not to expeditiously pursue a phase 3 trial combining LL with Keytruda The timing of further details, however, would likely be under Merck's control.
This is why I believe that the Keytruda silence was the most positive aspect of the cc -- maybe even outcome determinative for LL and CYDY.
(23)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
