Biotech Values

[iwfal]

JK - you said:

DD has it right, IMO

But I believe that this is a reference to the letter of the law. In which case Dew and I are in agreement. My argument was about the law as practiced - i.e. any chance that RPRX would ever be successfully prosecuted?

On this count you've left the door open. But just to provide a more black and white case where the info is unambiguously material, imagine the hypothetical case of:

a) A company, Company X, broadcasts that they have 90% power on an ongoing trial assuming efficacy z.

b) Another company announces that they have tested the same drug in Europe on a related indication and in the subpopulation similar to Company X's trial they found an efficacy substantially smaller than z.

so far, so good.

c) Company X never makes an announcement, but every investor that calls up to ask about the European trial is told that they have now recalculated the power and their current estimate of their own trial's power is 70%. (Yes, the company is populated by morons - but that isn't the point)

d) At the next Quarterly cc, 2-1/2 months later they first publicly (in something other than 1:1 conversations) talk about it.


Much more unambiguous that it is material (70% is a lot lower than 90%). But what is the chance that the company could be successfully prosecuted? If it is low, why?

PS My point here is that although the law is theoretically black and white (it is either material or not, it is either fully publically disclosed or it is not) in practice/outcome-prediction it is not. Having read lots of patent case law I would suggest that although all lawyers talk of black and white they simultaneously try to spin gray into their desired shade (black or white) on their desired case law - and how successful they are is in large part a function of what the shade of grey is. Gray things like intent, transparency matter.