1. Yes. I have zero tolerance for BOD members and execs who are well paid and incentivised and who somehow think that their shareholders / owners are not entitled to know what's really going on in their company that is important and material to investment decisions, whether it be bad or good. The Federal District Court in Seattle will ultimately decide whether the CEO and the two selling Directors improperly profited from their awareness of the undisclosed poor outcome of the February preapproval inspection when they sold shares and whether investors were damaged by such non-disclosure.
2, The point of my last post was that such factors may influence decisions that ultimately may hurt investors and prospective patients in unanticipated ways.
3. While you and I have rarely seen eye to eye, I am reminded of the "summertime event" of 2005, DNDN's July 22 report of the top line results of 9902a as being supportive of 9901 and followed by an impressive Cox analysis of the integrated results, which briefly pushed DNDN's pps over $7. The FDA did an instructive job at the AC in pointing out how malleable a Cox analysis can be, and depending on how it is done yield widely varying results. I doubt whether any serious investor in DNDN wasn't somewhat shocked at the 0.331 Kaplan Meier p value for 9902a that was disclosed in Paris in late October of 2005. You and PGS did raise questions before that disclosure, and of course, that series of events was ultimately followed by a low ball secondary at a pps of $4.50.
There is simply no substitute for intelligent and transaparent leadership especially in an industry as volatile as biotech. Withholding important facts, corporate spin and hype ultimately does no one any good. JMHO.
