RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Endo - Where's the Swine/Lorne,
Yes you are correct with he priority issue. Urocidin move down the Endo list of priority when Valstar got re-approved. Endo does have other fishes to fry which could cost less to approve. Urocidin is far more important to BNC than Endo. Considering the questionable phase 3b changes to compare their drug to Mitomycin, which was questioned by Art at that time, the Endo relationship was a bust. I never liked the control arrangements Endo had over BNC on the Urocidin.
However, the real question is whether Urocidin is the read deal or not. Some feel strongly that Endo's message sent by returning the right to BNC is that the stuff isn't going to make it. Although it's hard to argue that point, there is something just not clear. If the test results were a failure, then both Endo and BNC shareholders were owed that announcement. Was Endo liable for the failure to recruit the patients and the changes made to P3b? Technically P3b was incomplete based on the platform established between Endo and the FDA. Did Endo owe BNC something regardless? Did that lead to the settlement we have today? I do believe that Endo was owed something for the P3a & b data. I also believe that BNC wanted that data.
Not enough information provided to the shareholders regarding the agreement then or the agreement now. That the part I don't like. I'm paying close attention in the new year. It just might not be what it appears. I do believe BNC owes it's shareholders some real information on January 10th 2013.
TC9