I made no mention of the time frame for a buyout.
Post# of 153875
(Total Views: 632)
Posted On: 06/23/2020 5:03:03 PM
Re: nmbr1stckpckr #38774
I made no mention of the time frame for a buyout.
I merely repeated what NP has said at least two times -- and that is, by the end of the year there would be 10-P2 trials and 1-P3 trial.
My own reasoning for this accelerated trial initiation is the following:
1. Get FDA approval for as many indications as possible, and as fast as possible, in order to fully monetize the molecule while the biologic exclusivity is still in effect (12 years from the approval of the first indication -- which will either be COVID or Combo HIV).
2. Initiate as many trials as possible, in order to prove the potential efficacy of the molecule for as many indications as possible, in order to attract lucrative licensing deals from BP -- or in an effort to support a fair and proper valuation for the company if a buyout offer is presented.
I believe NP is concerned with:
1. The very real possibility of BP offering a low-ball number for the company that is below fair value
2. The possibility that investors might vote for the company to be acquired at a price that is below fair value
Accelerating these trials by the end of the year helps to kill two birds with one stone. Of course, it leaves on the table dozens of other indications for which trials cannot be immediately initiated, and whose potential value will remain unknown.
I merely repeated what NP has said at least two times -- and that is, by the end of the year there would be 10-P2 trials and 1-P3 trial.
My own reasoning for this accelerated trial initiation is the following:
1. Get FDA approval for as many indications as possible, and as fast as possible, in order to fully monetize the molecule while the biologic exclusivity is still in effect (12 years from the approval of the first indication -- which will either be COVID or Combo HIV).
2. Initiate as many trials as possible, in order to prove the potential efficacy of the molecule for as many indications as possible, in order to attract lucrative licensing deals from BP -- or in an effort to support a fair and proper valuation for the company if a buyout offer is presented.
I believe NP is concerned with:
1. The very real possibility of BP offering a low-ball number for the company that is below fair value
2. The possibility that investors might vote for the company to be acquired at a price that is below fair value
Accelerating these trials by the end of the year helps to kill two birds with one stone. Of course, it leaves on the table dozens of other indications for which trials cannot be immediately initiated, and whose potential value will remain unknown.
(4)
(0)