Powerwalker, clearly they'll be speaking with a quarterly in the next two weeks, but how much they can reveal above and beyond a normal quarterly may be in others hands. If no material or data that's never been peer reviewed is released, they're limited about what they can say. On the other hand, if they're in control of an issue, like filing with a regulator, they can certainly update about that.
I know that when they discuss million page filings there are companies that specialize in getting them out, just the announcement that such a company has been engaged would be positive news rather than trying to do it all themselves. I'm frankly unsure if even the BP's do it themselves. If they were to announce an intention to file somewhere no later than say the end of the third quarter, it would be greeted positively.
If you're right about discussions with one or more BP's, it would be big news to indicate they're in a quiet period, so it's cannot be discussed. Sometimes the best news available is that we're not free to discuss anything. During such periods they're still required to issue financials, but the failure to say certain things in the financials may be telling a story by itself.
I do suspect that sooner, or later, a BP will either partner, or look to buy the company. Personally I would like the price much higher before it happens, but that can only happen with one or more approvals. Offers very rarely pay more than double the current price, I would hope the company's trading in at least low double digits before considering any offer. Under confidentiality agreements, a potential partner, or buyer, would gain access to all the data we're being denied until it's peer reviewed. That's information that could lead to a much higher offering price, but only after the stock price reflects the news that's not yet been released to investors.
I for one believe that when we get the full story on RETT's we may see a possible path to approval without further trials, but that's purely my opinion. On more than one occasion the regulators have agreed that more than specific goals in a trial should be considered if a product has some benefit where nothing else exists.
Gary
Bullish
