RE:RE:RE:Why a new lawyer on the payrollI was thinking either replace Lafond or they anticipate being so busy with multiple, new programs that he'll need greater support. Either is fine by me.
Wino115 wrote: Does make it easier to "off-load" Lafond --(the old "...position has changed and we don't need generalist, we need 3 specialists. Thanks for your service kind gentleman..." Lafond was not a PL hire and we've seen he likes to upgrade positions. He can't have been happy with the rationale or appearance of his GC dumping shares at lows with potentially game-changing developments he's been touting. Just a bad signal all around, and I think PL knows this now.
qwerty22 wrote: You know you should put all this in an email and send it to Paul. You're probably right Paul probably hasn't asked himself if Lafond can't handle this. He'd need to be a genius like you to think of this stuff.
Maybe it signals an expansion of the trial . There was a threat of going into clinical sites in Europe I'd begun to assume that was on hold, maybe it's to do with a bunch of new sites coming online in the near future for phase 1b. Phase 2 would constitute a huge expansion and probably would need some preparation. I'm not saying Ph2 is on the horizon but maybe they see it coming down the road and the groundwork starts soon.
I'd say they are prep'ing for success and success means scaling up. They might fail and need to undo all this but that is how it goes.
Trogarzon wrote: Another thing, the hiring of a legal cousel for M&A stuff... can't Lafond do that.... can't they hire outside lawyer when and if they get an opportunity. Why increase my overhead with a permanent lawyer.. everything they announce or do always has an odd feeling to it. I find it odd to hire a layer when we already have Lafond... Sometimes it feels like having Justin Trudeau or Bidden throwin money around with off the wokeness in the world.