Just trying to gather some of my thoughts.
So, as a condition to financing, Neil Woodford required Cognate be paid in shares. Those shares in aggregate with the previous years' shares drove Cognate beyond the 20% threshold which requires a shareholder vote?
If that requires a shareholder vote, Neil Woodford could vote against them, and because the transfer was made after Neil Woodford gave his last financing (meeting his part of the obligation), he might have the share votes to effectively make him the leading shareholder? But how could he vote against it if he required them?
If the price is kept under 3.00, LP has no way to exercise her options to increase her vote share count. That battle might go on during an entire year (to the next shareholder meeting), and in the meantime, a certain regulator requires, nay demands closed system manufacturing? This might delay approval until after another shareholder showdown? It may not have been the Germans they might have demanded the possible change, because the MHRA also handles at least 1/3 of all EMA approvals. In fact, the headquarters for the EMA are in London. Sawston is near London.
If NW is taking this all the way to 2016 December, the trial ages, and the trial matures, but it seems like we have the regulators almost taking on the role of the DMC? So trial results may not demand unblinding if "it seems like everyone is living longer."??
If unblinding is not required, and sharing positive results would be punished, and regulators need more data....the trial goes on until....???
The rift between NW may be resolvable, but it also/still adds to the angst regarding who will be in control?
The lockdown caused by the screening halt keeps this price under 3.00 where LP can't exercise her option to gain more voting shares?
The character assassination against LP makes obtaining funding very very difficult? The constant attack on price keeps a possible share jump and timely option exercise from happening?
High level former FBI and CIA are brought in by NWBO to investigate and/or steady the ship?
VP Biden is looking to lend government support to innovative cancer research.
An impressive scientific advisory board is established for upcoming trials and possible commercialization.
The apparent lockdowns on sharing any possible good data come from prior precedent against other small companies, PIM and HE marketing restrictions, protected ongoing dialogue between regulators and NWBO, getting burned by some media outlets, etc? A lot of reasons to keep one's mouth shut?
The usual need for SEC disclosure of material news, is outweighed by the need for trial integrity regarding positive news?
Patients and investors have no solid idea what interim we are at, what the screening halt is for and when we will get to hear any news.
Message board posters keep driving away old and new investors?
Respect Risk. Conduct Your Own Due Diligence. Manage your assets wisely. Diversify.
