Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That's interesting, I have never heard that mentioned as a potential target by anyone at Targacept (Abbott doesn't talk to me, but I've never heard anything from that direction either on respiration).
The only other comment I have is that I have noted on several occasions that Gary Lynch believes different Ampakines have varying selectivity for different subpopulations of AMPA receptors, so 'assuming' broad brush binding is not congruent with that view.
NeuroInvestment
OT: Targacept
Just saw this post. This is indeed the same alpha4beta2 nicotinic that completely failed in sz, and was fair at best on Alzheimer's. But Abbott's alpha4beta2 drug also did well in ADHD, so I am thinking that this receptor subtype is better for attention than memory/reasoning--nicotinic alpha7 drugs look like they may be better for the latter. I'm not sure how key this trial data is to turning Targacept around--AZ still has to decide if they'll continue developing that molecule, and I believe there's a fat milestone attached, they might not want to pay it for just ADHD. Targacept still has lots of money and other things with AZ and GSK, so they are in comfortable shape compared to a lot of microcaps.
For once in my life, I traded that news well, buying first thing in the am, selling at the top and getting out. By comparison, my buy and hold strategy with Cortex has.....uh..um.....not yet paid off. But we'll see. As you have ably noted, there are still a few scenarios that could play out.
NeuroInvestment
However, in my view, the terms "reliable information" and "pending" are mutually exclusive when it comes to deals in discussion.
NeuroInvestment
Having downplayed the trading when it was at 600K shares for the day, 3 million shares (even though it only reflects $1 million in actual cash value) yesterday caught my attention. This does seem different. I do believe that the selling is from the convertible preferred, that group is taking its 80-100% profit and walking away, but doing so gradually in order to keep the price stable.
To me the more important question is--who is buying and why?
It could be a fund that has decided to accumulate and couldnt get in on the financing for whatever reason. But you have to ask--if they have the capital to buy this much stock, they would have had enough to compete for the 17 cent per share offering. Why jump in now, and not earlier? The only hypothesis I have is that it is a group that didnt want to be alone on the limb--but with someone else having given Cortex a transfusion, they perceived the risk as having been reduced.
There has been some speculation that it could be a fund or company looking to achieve a takeover of the company.
The example cited I think referred to Avigen, where BVF acquired about 30% of the shares and was able to use that position, plus a buyout offer from MediciNova, and a skilled and (IMHO) unscrupulous media campaign, to set the stage for Avigen to be liquidated--for its cash on hand. There are some differences here: Cortex has IP, not cash, and there is no disclosed buyout bid. The level of accumulation also has not reached the point where one could speak realistically of a battle for control--with no single institutional shareholder having a large position, even adding 3-4 million more shares just doesn't get you there.
Neither of these explanations is particularly convincing--yet. But I havent thought of a third possibility to this point.
NeuroInvestment
BTG's sleep apnea treatment combines two serotonergic agents (which they have not specifically disclosed), which raises some combo problems. Galleon Pharma is a competitor, but their compound has some potential cardiac issues. The company I have been surprised by is Sanofi-Aventis, which has a couple of compounds in the clinic, one in Phase II, one in Phase I. A potentially powerful competitor, but the fact that a major pharma is putting effort into sleep apnea means that others will follow--because Big Pharmas are like sheep--not all--but if one defines a market as important, some others will decide that they should too. But they will go where some risk has been eliminated, and until CX1739 shows POC, the big risk is--that it doesn't work. If and when Cortex moves past that risk, the dynamic will change.
NeuroInvestment
OT: iloperidone
If I recall, Geodon has reached around $900 million in annual sales, but you have that going generic in 2012, Zyprexa before that, Risperdal already there. So there is growing generic competition, particularly from Geodon, which is very similar. I'd throw out a peak sales figure of $400 million, based on these factors. And that's assuming a strong marketing partner. Not a given.
As you note (and I'd mentioned the same thing on the NI site) Titan, which was down to about three employees waiting for Probuphine to be partnered, suddenly has a substantial (relatively speaking) revenue flow to look forward to.
Caveat:
I haven't called anything right on iloperidone to this point, so all iloperidone comments should be taken with contrarian salt.
NeuroInvestment
<<I wouldn't underestimate what a 900% percent return in one day in a Nasdaq-listed stock can have on Market psychology. >>
Valid point. Perhaps I will erase all my negative posts about the iloperidone decision and go with the flow, maybe change my tune to:
'Microcap biotech strategy validated! Who will be the next Vanda? Could it be a company that starts with a C?! Just send $19.99 for your 'Biotech Miracle' stocktip! Guaranteed or your money back, (if you can find us)....'
Then again, maybe not.
NeuroInvestment
Blade--your memory is fine. Mihael Polymeropoulos was at Novartis, and Vanda's Chairman Karabelas had a Novartis connection too. So they licensed iloperidone in a sweetheart 'alumni' deal--500K upfront,I believe.
In response to an earlier post, this is not a victory for biotech. This is the spawn of a BP, taking a BP drug ahead. Had they actually created a useful biomarker/test, that might have been a biotech contribution. But they put that aside, and just did the 'same old, same old.'
Thia will give aid and comfort to the me-too crowd, and take resources away from small company creativity.
NeuroInvestment
One more thought. I have no ill wishes towards Vanda shareholders (I continue to intensely dislike their management, persuasive though they must have been). But this decision annoys the hell out of me. The FDA put tons of time into reviewing this mediocre me-too, and now Vanda will spend a lot of money marketing it, or will get someone else to. All of which are resources wasted--and in this case, maybe $100 million at least will get immolated in 'Fanapt's launch. And the label-expansion studies, and the extended release variations. $200 million?
When I think of the many small companies dying on the vine for lack of a few million, Cortex being only one of them, it's nauseating. What a waste.
But that's just my opinion.
NeuroInvestment
OT
Actually (I've been following this since 1995) the drug was developed by Hoechst, licensed to Titan who did PhII, outlicensed to Novartis, who did the failed PhIII, outlicensed by Novartis to Vanda, who redid PhIII.
As my other post said, maybe it's the akasthisia profile. The Psychiatric Division put Geodon through hell for approval, and nothing went wrong for Geodon users, no real indication of cardiac issue increase. So maybe they decided that this is Geodon with less akasthisia, and might as well be available.
I had posted a Vanda comment immediately after approval on my website, I'm not going to repost it here, because I am getting weary of commenting how wrong I was.
NeuroInvestment
OT: VANDA
I certainly wasn't predicting approval, but I don't think it has anything to do with the CNTF biomarker. This is what I wrote about that marker two months ago:
<<Based on the data thus far, iloperidone appears to be very similar to Geodon in all respects, other than it appears more prone to rare but worrisome QTc outliers, patients with more pronounced QTc changes, and less prone to akathisia. Vanda’s aspiration to genomically steer likely responders towards iloperidone has not come to pass: The only test that is operational assesses the presence of two versus one intact CNTF-expressing (Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor gene) genes, and thereby parses out the 75% of patients with two intact copies, who are more likely to respond to atypicals (including but no limited to iloperidone) from the 25% with one intact copy, who are treatment-responsive, but not as much. That genomic test is useless in its current form.>>
Last year Polymeropoulos said on a quarterly call that they had never tested users of other antipsychotic drugs on that test in comparison to iloperidone users--saying that they would leave that to a partner. Hence my conclusion that this test has, at present, virtually no discriminating power, and would not affect treatment planning one bit. If they subsequently ran trials comparing antipsychotics to demonstrate some differentiation, I missed it, but I don't think that occurred.
Maybe it was the less akasthisia, maybe--I don't know. It's a real surprise to me, because the FDA had asked them to do another trial (my memory was it was another Risperdal comparator trial), they balked, and yet they received approval. How often does that happen?
Damn. I knew I should have put all my worldly possessions into Vanda stock today.
NeuroInvestment
There is something different now--they raised money. Now we can say the terms were awful, and they were. But somebody put up $1.5 million, and those who say funds are just throwing that kind of money randomly at a dart board have no clue. So this is interpreted as meaning that a sophisticated investor decided it was worth putting $1.5 million at risk. The second piece is that it indeed extended the 'runway' so that it is pretty clear that they will finish the SA trial and then have more than a few days of 'fuel' left. That's why there is enough demand to 'sop' up the supply. This is different than presuming there is an imminent, yet-to-be-disclosed event that is propelling some type of buying based on nonpublic info, which seemed to be the other hypothesis.
NeuroInvestment
There is now a large supply of 17 cent shares which can be gradually converted into a 60% effortless gain. And there is enough demand to sop up those shares. I don't think it means anything more than that.
NeuroInvestment
I'm sure they are aware, and have interest. Over the past 18 months they have been somewhat preoccupied with broadening beyond ADHD while trying to get Vyvanse into the marketplace in anticipation of Teva's Adderall XR launch, which just happened. If there is any company almost sure to be looking at CX1739/ADHD even before it has POC, it would be Shire. That doesn't mean they are going to take action, but I am sure they are looking at it.
NeuroInvestment
Mirtazapine (Remeron) is an antidepressant from Organon which tends to be soporific, so it actually received more attention as a non-benzo sleep inducer than as an antidepressant. Organon and Cypress Biosciences teamed up two or three years ago to test mirtazapine in conjunction with another, undisclosed med, as a treatment for sleep apnea. They quietly ran a couple of clinical studies, and terminated the program because it didnt work.
NeuroInvestment
There wasn't room for two at the top of that program. It illustrates the way that these mergers can disrupt R&D activities--there is no way that his departure will not have some negative impact on the momentum of Pfizer's biotech endeavors. That's not a negative comment on the Wyeth head, who I have not met (I have met Goodman in the past), just a fact-of-life from the merger process. Given the increased BP interest in biologicals, he won't be without Big Pharma employment for long, unless he wants to be.
NeuroInvestment
I know you mean well, but you are so off-base here. For one, singling out Stoll as if he represents some outlier of perspective is rather inaccurate. The anticipation of increasing demand and sales has been the mindset of the entire industry for decades, and a change in behavior associated with the biggest economic crisis of the past seventy years does not indict any single player, perhaps not even the industry. A panicky reduction in demand for prescription meds IMHO will be temporary--while the reduction in total value of sales is also partly attributable to increased generic competition.The industry can be blamed for having suckled at the teat of unimaginative imitation via me-too drugs for the past ten plus years, but not for expecting increases in demand associated with projected changes in population demographics.
The wild card of course is whether or not governmental price controls will be partially or completely implemented--but the notion that the upward curve of demand, at least for the psychiatric/neurological drug segment I know, is incorrect. If anything, it will increase as the population ages--and Alzheimer's, PD, stroke become even more salient in their drain of medical care resources.
BTW--as I reported a couple months ago, and in contrast to your comment regarding "dilution", the one criticism I have heard of Cortex management by their pharma peers is that they didnt raise money aggressively enough early-on, that they were too concerned about dilution and shareholder sentiment. Hindsight suggests they were right, but I certainly didnt recognize it at the time.
NeuroInvestment
On such things do these partnering decisons sometimes hang. It's not necessarily deciding to make a $ concession, it can be control of a molecule which holds everything up. In general, I've always believed it highly unlikely that two different partners can develop the same molecule for different indications IN THE SAME geographic area (since that can create crosstalk within the same regulatory agency). If it has happened, I'm not recalling it off the top of my head. Cortex could try to partner CX1739 for SA in the US, CX1739 for ADHD in the EU. That's a stretch too.
But there are ways to try to make this palatable to a BP. If it was me, I'd offer up worldwide rights to CX1942 to the BP licensing CX1739 for the US. Then you hope the EU partner for ADHD would then want to license CX2007 worldwide for ADHD. Or something along those lines.Leaving Cortex to develop the high-impacts.
This is why I find it so ludicrous when critics talk about small companies pushing large ones into partnerships--there are multiple entities, territories, and molecules that all interweave, and each move affects the possibilities for others.
NeuroInvestment
I'm not sure what your definition of 'big payday' is. If they can still develop CX1739 for ADHD, they would have to get enough to run that Phase II they have discussed. If they have to give up CX1739, they'd have to get more upfront, so they have enough to bring the next low-impact into POC testing. And as I wrote a couple of weeks ago, if they license both SA and ADHD, they need to get three years of operating money so they can bring the high-impacts along. Those are the goals--we'll see if they can execute any of the three.
NeuroInvestment
The 'chatter' is that there have been, and continue to be, talks with multiple companies. Talks are very tightly wrapped--there's no particular reason for leakage: Cortex doesn't want to taint their prospects by saying anything, and BP BusDev groups are generally in talks/DD with literally dozens of companies at a time--it's what they do, it's all that they do, outlicensing and inlicensing (and generally different groups within a BP handle each of those tasks). As discussions get more serious, the degree of information available decreases, not increases. BP's don't want other companies to know what they are doing, because they fear that could increase the price.
Any tiny Phase IIa--and lots of companies are now doing them--is a kind of anecdotal POC. They almost never get statistical significance, and if they do, it can be an artifact of the measure used (e.g. Targacept's 20pt MCI trial which was surprisingly positive, but the drug failed when AstraZeneca ran a big trial in Alzheimer's, probably because the cognitive test Targacept used has a tendency towards false positives). If you want to be a purist, there is no absolute "proof" until Phase III has been successfully completed. POC is more accurately thought of as--is there a signal that indicates the drug has some effect upon the symptom(s) in question?
NeuroInvestment
There's no reversal, and this is something I have suggested a few times in the past. Pharma sentiment or empathy have nothing to do with it. What I stated--as was previously the case with Cortex's ill-fated ADHD partnership--does not infer any particular change in BP bureaucracy. It reflects the fact that, having already had access to 'the Cortex books' as part of the RD DD, a lot of the decision-making can be frontloaded, as opposed to backloaded--they won't be starting when the SA data is finally available. The science people have already gone through the lab work and preclinical data; the legal people have looked at the IP; the BD people have looked at the competitive landscape. And indeed they have done these things at that proverbial snail's pace. But it also means it doesn't have to require six months post-trial to finish the process.
NeuroInvestment
That's not the group that was doing DD that I knew about, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Cranshire, there probably were a couple of groups that R&R invited in....so it's possible.
NeuroInvestment
I think they are setting up a deal where the terms are pre-defined, based on evidence that CX1739 reduces SA. If they show that it does, with only 20 patients, and very few with central/mixed SA, that's all they can hope for: a signal (and without dramatic adverse events). They probably have, or expect to have, the term sheets already set by that time. That does not mean it will happen, but that would be the plan. The BP people could get approval from other levels of the bureaucracy based on--IF SA OK, then.......So it doesnt have to be many months--just as they had an ADHD deal that was predicated upon being able to forward in ADHD.
Or, as I have said before, any of their assets is up for bid, and an ADHD deal could still happen.
It is also possible that R&R and the Mystery Investor may have said--if you get positive SA results, which reduces the risk, we'd be interested in another tranche, at a higher price.
NeuroInvestment
Bold? Lazy is more like it. Try reading my posts.
NeuroInvestment
Point taken that not all projects are created equal. Out of the hundreds, there might be a couple of dozen that stand out. There are lots of other factors besides charisma at play here--including whether the R&D people inhouse want an inlicensed competitor, and does the Ampakine platform (in this case) have an inhouse advocate beyond the Business Development team.There are multiple levels that have their say, some of whom never meet the small company directly.
'Favorable chemistry or rapport' does not outweigh a clinical hold from the FDA, without which there was a major deal waiting to be signed. The BP people involved combine science and business, they look at data and work out likely revenue scenarios on spreadsheets. The human factor plays some role, as it does everywhere, but it's not the dominant one.
NeuroInvestment
<<Respect comes to mind (if you are a good negotiator)>>
Each Big Pharma Business Development group has hundreds of proposals being pitched to them. Push away, they don't care.
<<Anyway, there goes the theory of having more than one interested partner>>
I don't see that, but those talks are semi-independent of each other. There are limits to which companies can be played off against each other--i.e. if you disclose much about Company A to Company B in spite of the CDA, Company B will assume that you are disclosing just as much about them to Company A. Which can be a problem.
NeuroInvestment
1)The small company is not in a position to 'push the deal along', and if you think that is untrue, then that means that almost all of the literally hundreds of small biotech companies looking for a deal are somehow failing to do so. The larger companies hold the string, and you know what happens when you push a string.
2) My hypothetical model is a bit different: In this situation, everything is on the table (and I don't think we need a conference call to confirm this). So for example, if they are trying to negotiate an ADHD deal, the larger company's sense of leverage will vary depending on how close they think Cortex might be to signing a deal for something else, like SA. As soon as the latter happens, the ADHD company's leverage goes down, and conversely, a delay means that they can wait longer.
NeuroInvestment
This post had shown up blank on the roster, and I thought it was a deleted entry. Now I see there was some content here:
1) I don't know what Entremed has or has not said about the partnering process while engaged in it, but if one has to go that far afield to find an exception, I'll stick to my case that any discussion of partnering talks other than the most generic possible is generally not done.
2) <<Discuss plans. Discuss strategy. Discuss what is going on that is reportable. Provide timelines that are realistic. Inform the shareholder of information that is available for dissemination. Inform the shareholder of what exit strategies are in place should none of their current plans materialize. Perform "public relations". Build confidence in the company during times of trouble>>
I think this has been done as much as is safely possible. I've already addressed the issue of timelines in another post--it could be to their detriment to say anything more than they already have. Is there really anything that they can say in general, generic terms that would "build confidence?" I think words are pretty irrelevant now, and they know it. Either they pull off a deal or two, or they'll have to sell the company to the highest bidder(s). Would it restore your confidence, or anyone else's, to hear them say that?
We will continue to disagree about the etiology of Cortex's current dilemma.
NeuroInvestment
I'm going to make one attempt at responding to what was a pretty thought-free post:
1) You are simply incorrect regarding every element of the 'partnership discussion' question. They've said many times that they are looking for a deal, unless you want to hear them say it again for some unknown reason, that's all you'll hear, from them or any other responsible company. As I have said many times, a deal is not done until signed, and several deals have been left at, as you put it, the "altar" (I am assuming you meant "altar" when you wrote "alter", and "throes" when you wrote "throws"). If you are running out of money, and only 70% of the way to a deal, you'd better raise some, because the very fact that you are running out is a deterrent to finishing the last 30%. The Market isn't going to assume a deal any more than management is.
2) "simply reaffirm the timing of expected results": and if there was some delay, that could be used against them in a licensing process, you'd prefer for that to be public, to satisfy your curiosity, even if it is to the detriment of the company.....did I hear you correctly?
"are yet to come out and tell us why they did that"---that's pretty obvious. They need the money, and they can't guarantee another source, as was noted above, and has been noted before.
NeuroInvestment
OK. For all those taking shots at management for this purported 'hiding:'
Please present an example or two of small biopharm companies in similar situations where their dissemination of information differed significantly from we are seeing here.
By similar situations, I refer to:
1) Active partnering/licensing negotiations ongoing
2) Enrollment ongoing in critical clinical trial
My experience is that no responsible company ever discloses anything relevant to #1. Never. Because until it's signed, it's potentially all vapor, and everyone involved has signed confidentiality agreements.
Regarding #2: Companies vary in their level of disclosure around clinical trial protocols and progress. Cortex has not said much about the protocol, as is not unusual. Companies will comment on enrollment progress, generally if it diverges from stated projections, and generally in the course of a quarterly call. Two questions here: Does it make sense for a company engaged in licensing talks to disclose the status of enrollment progress when that could be material to a potential partner's strategy for waiting Cortex out, or not?
Secondly, does it make sense to hold a quarterly call when you can't discuss #1, and discussing #2 might compromise #1?
If any of the mudthrowers indulging themselves this morning have cogent examples of companies taking a different tack, please share them. Otherwise, I would suggest that Cortex's fiduciary responsibility is best fulfilled by making those two events happen, not by holding a call where they either frustrate participants because they can't say anything, or they say something that could jeopardize the licensing process.
NeuroInvestment
Dew: True, that's one of the possibilities, I've tried to direct a couple companies Cortex's way. But unfortunately, the other dynamics are:
1) Lots of companies needing the cash-rich, pipeline poor company. It's like an oil field worker putting a Craigslist ad looking to meet women in Alaska--there's a lot of competition.
2) Some of the shareholders (BVF or Tang seem to usually be involved) of these CR/PP companies have decided to take the cash, rather than allow M&A--e.g. Avigen: NTI and Vanda have the same issue under discussion. That further reduces the number of available parties.
NeuroInvestment
Just as there has been some modest thawing in the overall credit market as the 'psychology' has shifted (somewhat, depending on who you listen to) regarding the economic downturn--and I have seen it directly in Big Pharma expenditures, which had been totally frozen for a few months--there is a thaw coming in licensing/M&A money. That thaw is not instantaneous, the process is still slower than it should be, and used to be. My point was that--IMHO--that company-specific statements were being made which overlooked the systemic factors.
Big and midsize Pharma money will flow before microcap financing money does, which is why the financing terms were so lousy.
NeuroInvestment
<<but we both know I'm right>>
Actually, no. But I do know that you believe you are, and that there is nothing anyone can say to change that opinion. I have no interest in trying.
NeuroInvestment
<<would you surmise that enemem's suggestion (to sell off the low impact platform as a whole) is a viable avenue?>>
If they can find a single company that wants the whole ball-of-wax, maybe, but the overlap between ADHD and pain companies is small. If Cortex got a good offer that allowed them to then fully develop the high-impacts--there's a good chance they'd take it. But they would have no other source of funds for the high impacts for the foreseeable future, so they'd need to get 3+ years of operating money....why would anyone assume this is an easier sell than licensing RD or ADHD separately?
<<As a side, to Prana's credit, they did negotiate a deal with the loyal shareholders, unlike Cor management.>>
This is becoming an urban myth. Prana did a private placement for A$7 million in March 2008, getting some existing investors to buy in. That is not the same as polling all shareholders to see if they'd like to buy some, it is going to your major shareholders and asking if they'd like to buy more. I'm sure Cortex approached its (few) institutional owners and made the same invitation. And do you think Prana would have the same luck with a private placement in March 2009 as they did in March 2008?
I don't think so.
NeuroInvestment
<<continued opinion that COR has something incredibly unique and insanely ignored>>
--if you can find where I said that, do let me know.
It would probably be more helpful if you did not misquote and exaggerate my statements.
<<Is it your opinion then that if the Nuclear Winter did not happen, and it was business as usual for the Pharma industry, that COR would have had a decent deal by now?>>
Probably.
<<What's your prognostication for COR>>
About four or five weeks ago I said I didn't know what is going to happen. I still think it is more likely than not that they will get a deal, maybe even two, and I think it was smart, even if painful, to buy a couple months more time--not a hard call, given that the alternatives were far worse.
But as I have said over-and-over-and-over, this is unknown territory--for everybody.
NeuroInvestment
<<we don't consider Ampakines in the same class, with the same potential, as these other companies>>
It doesn't matter what "we" think. That's a Cortex-centric view, I have been as guilty of it at times as anyone. And every small company exec tries to sell the notion that their company's widget is better than the others. It's all about the data, not salesmanship.
Blade made what I think was a valuable request a few weeks ago, he asked me to cite what might be seen as arguments against Cortex partnering at this point (I paraphrase, but I did respond at the time). It was and is a useful exercise: If you just look at clinical data, and for all partners, that's where they start, Cortex has two tiny Phase IIa studies in RD. That's an indication most companies don't care about. Now I did believe that a pain company would see this as sufficiently valuable as is to license it. But with an oral drug only acceptable for acute use, no human data for the IV (Cortex can't even afford to do the animal tox studies for IV CX717), and no RD data for CX1739, this is not what a lot of large companies would consider an airtight case. In a different environment, one of them might have stepped up, and that could still happen, but in this macro-environment, where there are literally hundreds of partnering opportunities (including scores of pain programs), they don't have to step out of their comfort zone. And I do know of one company that decided they didnt want to license something that isn't Phase III ready.
Contrast that to, say Prana, with PBT-2. Tanzi/Bush have as much scientific street cred as Gary Lynch, and Prana has mixed but acceptable POC data from a somewhat larger trial in Alzheimer's. The sexy indication that keeps getting cited as the target Cortex should go after. Prana has had that data for a year, and has been trying to partner for a year. Nothing yet. That could change tomorrow. But given that this is an environment where a small company with partial POC in a 78 pt trial in a major disorder like Alzheimer's can't get a partner--(And Prana isn't the only company with Phase II POC in Alzheimer's that has not yet signed a deal..e.g. Allon, TauRx), suggesting that Cortex's failure to obtain one indicates some specific deficit or failure is off-base.
NeuroInvestment
I've been refraining from commenting on this topic up to this point, since most of the contributions have fallen under the Unshakeable Opinion umbrella. However, there is a fundamental element missing from this discussion:
Since Nuclear Winter began last...last fall, 'winter' began in autumn... how many licensing deals have small CNS companies been able to sign? Let's see: Torrey Pines sold its Alzheimer's research lock-stock-and-barrel to Eisai for....I believe the figure was about $1 million. And they sold off the remains of the Axonyx IP to Cenomed for....I don't believe it's been disclosed, but in fact there may not have been much if any upfront money at all. Evotec and Boehringer Ingelheim signed a joint research deal, but those two German companies had history from Evotec's service provider days. Otherwise: nothing, and there are dozens of companies desperately looking for partners. So far as I can tell, it's not that these companies have been getting low-ball offers, it's that they haven't been getting offers at all. Mid and Big Pharma have had no reason to rush, and indeed plenty of reason to wait. As has been discussed.
To describe this as if it is a one-actor morality play is to ignore the context, and no answers will be found that way. At least, none that have any truth to them.
NeuroInvestment
While I may quibble with the notion of being 'ethically' bound to participate here, I do have this odd sense of responsibility and loyalty to this Board, built over time, which is irrational and inconvenient. So I (already) have chosen to post some additional information. I will be selective about what I post, and what I respond to. There are people--even well-intentioned people--whose minds are made up. It's not my job to change their views. And I will do my best to disregard provocations. If that isn't sufficient, since simple withdrawal ended up more complicated than I anticipated, I'll go to war to resolve this. While I may not have any pull with iHub, I'll do my best to find out if I do, or use whatever relationship I have with those who do, to reconfigure this board by whatever means necessary.If I leave again, it won't be temporary, but it won't be without making every effort to not be the one departing.
I hope that is not necessary. My intent, as it always has been, is to provide information for those interested, and to hear and consider thoughtful, alternative points of view. You and I, for example, have had points where we were in marked disagreement, but (I like to think) we emerged from them with mutually broadened perspective and respect. Gfp and I have disagreed at times, it doesn't matter. Intellectually honest disagreement and discussion is welcome from my perspective. There isn't anyone looking in on this Board who does not have some grasp of what falls outside of that category, and for that kind of thing, my tolerance is going to be pretty limited.
NeuroInvestment
The VC I believe did the deal doesn't look like a consistent fast-flipper or a group aiming to do a takeover--none of their exited companies that I recognize (only a minority are CNS) were 'taken over'. My read of them is that they have made an investment very cheaply, and they probably have some internal standard they shoot for--five to tenfold gain. If they reach that, perhaps they'll exit. It looks to me, at least based on the CNS companies they have invested in, that they shoot for companies with a clinical data inflection point coming, either Phase II or III. On the companies they were or are in, that involved a predictable 1-2 year timespan. I don't know if the same would apply here (SA Phase IIa? their modus operandi makes me think it more likely to be ADHD Phase IIb). But it is a different world now, so they might be more inclined to go pick a different low-hanging fruit once they've hit their benchmark goal.Buy and hold may now be less applicable to VC's than it once was.
Caveat: the group I refer to approached a friend of mine for input as they did DD on Cortex. So I know they looked. I have not confirmed--or even tried to at this point--that they ultimately did the financing.
NeuroInvestment
BTW Aiming--I just received a PM from someone who possesses deep knowledge of the iHub system, who stated that iHub moderators can ban posters. You might want to check further into this--not in order to carry out anyone else's wishes, but so that you'll be sure of any weapons that may be at your disposal as you moderate this board.
NeuroInvestment