RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Financial and othersWhen i talked to mrs. Gibson and suggested the possibility of partnering,
she said it would be a pitty to partner and give away "the bulk of profits"...
...????!!!!! They wanted to keep it inhouse and go it alone!
scarlet1967 - (7/15/2021 12:29:16 PM) RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Financial and others They got the EMA onboard by altering the original trial design which will cost more, the partnership idea was discussed during the chat with concord so it's not a u-turn as some suggested, the added cost might just tip it over but again they "certainly " won't give it up absent partners, why should they?
Yes their oncology program can be approved but that won't happen tomorrow and if not NASH is about everything they have in their R&D pipeline.
Plan A seems to be to partner for the costly NASH trial and they are there now looking actively for a partner as they hired a third party company to assist them with just that so not shelved or inactive. Plan B is to go alone, if oncology is no go they have as per end of May about $57 M, the NASH trial's cost is paid on a proforma basis and not in advance so they can start it and finance it later during process. If oncology is successful the SP should appreciate progressively as the program progresses with good results starting with Q4 2021 and completed phase 1 2022, starting phase 2 2022 etc then in the next 6 to 12 months they can start thinking about an offering with better terms at better prices to finance NASH and oncology. But I believe they will spend few months to get a partner first failing that they will start the program and swallow the extra expenses. As far as we know they might have been thinking about a partnership for a while not surprised at all since they now have a board member who have contributed to make deals like that in the past also many here including myself wanted them to partner with a biotech for either oncology or mostly NASH. Now that they announce it why talking about the program is dead?