I am not a short. I know it does not apply it is permissible to describe events that do not directly apply under the rule and non- disclosure with other concurrent or subsequent statements might trigger possibly valid or invalid fraud claims, by shareholders, but mere silence, without more and appropriate careful review of data does not trigger a requirement to disclose it any more than regular sales data that might be very bad, but not be listed under those clauses would trigger a “4 day disclosure” obligation.
It’s data. They are management. They have the right to review it. It is not “bad or good” necessarily, as we know companies apply and get approval sometime for what might on first glance be “bad data.” Persons like AF qualify these drugs, wrongly. All of that is the application of judgment. Companies have the right and ability to review the data fully before they characterize it... that can take longer than 4 days. Therefore receipt of data, does not trigger a 4 day rush to judgment.
If it operated the way people suggest it would be known as the “4 day rush to judgment rule”. It’s not that.
Should they disclose ASAP? Sure. Best practice and it avoids giving malcontents and evil doers opportunities and it helps avoid misstatements that can create liabilities.
Can they use an 8-K to disclose? Yes, it’s not just relevant to the required items but is permissive, so that when management makes its determinations, it can use that form.
The permissive and the required details appear to confuse investors into creating this axiom, but mostly with this company. It’s not an axiom I’ve seen with any other companies but most of the others do not have investors quite so desperate to make final conclusions from lack of disclosure. You can’t make a positive conclusion from a lack of disclosure. It’s not a rational result.
Articles on the subject dance around this point and clearly suggest that there is a problem with the disclosure rules, that other “rules” were created to address the issue loosely, but they are not effective at forcing rapid disclosure. And that is because of the sensitivities around trial data and the different approaches of the different regulators.
So it’s permissively allowed under the 8K rules, it is best practice to disclose ASAP once a company is satisfied with its analysis, but it is not immediately required. They can analyze so that they understand the full picture, but they might inadvertently create possible liability if they say anything or file anything that miscommunicates material facts relevant to the trial.
It is unlikely that a complex trial like this, with the blind data we have seen, would provide an unambiguously negative reading across the board, in my opinion, so the entire discussion is moot. It allows the people to imply they’ve disclosed by not disclosing...which is ridiculous, but takes the heat off, so I can imagine why the company seems happy with people thinking this... though what they’ve really said only is: 1) when we KNOW, we will disclose ASAP; and 2) if we knew it was a total failure, don’t you think we’d tell you quickly? That is a question, by the way...
It’s corporate speak for, I can’t tell you anything right now, but we’re doing our best and we will disclose ASAP and have shareholder’s interests in mind. But they are not really saying anything that we don’t already know.
IMHO, we all pretty much know the trial results are complex, there could be multiple areas of success and the picture could be mixed. But the blind data suggests very good results, which makes unambiguously “bad” results, whatever that means, unlikely. So trying to conclude that delay, is unambiguously good, is more about practical details than regulation.
Concluding we have “good results” is flawed if based upon a regulation that is not directly and clearly applicable, as an axiom. It’s also a kind of reasoning that is flawed as a form of deriving “knowledge” generally. It’s just poor logic.
But, for other reasons, practical reasons, reasons of trust, or considerations related to unblinded data and the confidence one might have unblinded data one might be fairly confident in the notion that delay is probably a positive, that the trial is probably not a TOTAL failure or they’d probably, though not certainly, have nothing to keep analyzing. But none of it is certain until you have the data.
And that is not a “short” position. That is just being fact driven. We will know more when we know. Some people may conclude it’s a good sign and buy more while they can. But no one knows for sure until we know. But creating an axiom from a rule that is not directly and clearly applicable (and even if it was) to determine a factual outcome is certain, is just not good logic. Maybe someone might claim it’s a short-hand but even then, not a very good one as it depends on a lot of unknowable factors.