I respectfully disagree here. The company has already indicated (per Jesse) that they are likely to look for a buyout in 2026. If Blarcamesine only receives a CMA, then the buyout value will be materially discounted compared to a standard MA. In a buyout situation, there is no "delay the realization of max value". I think we can all agree that a CMA introduces additional risks to the acquiring party compared to a standard MA.
Now, if Anavex stays independent then this is largely irrelevant in the long run, but you would also need to recognize that a CMA affects Anavex's negotiation leverage in partnership discussions, since the partner will need to invest a material amount of time and money and any risk that this investment will evaporate is an argument against a very lucrative deal for Anavex.
In short - I am discouraged by this discussion of a CMA. I understand that as Anavex applied for a full MA, it should either receive or be denied a full MA so I don't quite understand where this CMA idea is coming from beyond MayoMobile. I would also believe that any such movement is material discussion that should be released by the company and, if not, I agree with Hoskuld that this is a legitimate basis for a lawsuit against the firm and a strike against management's judgement.
I see that MayoMobile says a CMA is a logical conclusion but I don't see how he arrives at this conclusion. I would like it if he can elaborate his logic here with citations to the relevant places in EMA's procedure that allows this.
Market Data 
Markets 
