There is no value to a merger with SAVA, for a number of reasons:
1. They may well be crooked. I know, I know, lawyers filed the petition so of course it's all lies. Lawyers only lie, just like journalists are all lazy and dishonest. But who here has read the filing? It's scientifically serious. There is no comparison here to the old Feuerstein posts attacking Anavex.
2. The SAVA CEO is just in it for a quick buck, between the nine figure bonus based on market cap, his endless pumping, and his expressed desire to sell his company.
3. Even if SAVA is on the up and up, it is way overvalued. That leads to serious dilution to AVXL shareholders in a merger, and the prospect of even further dilution if the idea of selling that merged company to a BP takes hold.
4. Blarcamesine and simulfilam are not complementary. Anavex would get nothing worthwhile from co-owning downstream and not-so-promising simufilam (assuming it is a legitimate pharmaceutical).
5. Anavex has no need to co-own, at an inflated price, the SAVA Alzheimer's test. There are competing products heading to market and AVXL can happily coexist with them in that space.
All this merger talk seems like a desire for a sugar high in the near term price, akin to the panicked demands for an interim peek at the 2b/3 trial which, by the way, ain't happening.
Market Data 
Markets 
