Over 300, of course that's prob 301-304, no where near full.
I wonder why they are stating the same number of patients enrolled as they did 8 months ago when the halt was implemented? They should have had enough already screened to complete enrollment......they probably just didn't bother to update it because it's not that important. I hope you can now see why the latest financing was done at the level it was, not that it wasn't apparent the first time.
No doubt there are steps to get the hold lifted if it is FDA/EMA placed but they are saying here they might just not?
This is in the "Risks" section. My point wasn't that they might not be released from the hold, my point was that only here do we see the hold was initiated by someone else and someone else controls when it is released.
Their whole "turning good news into bad" crap was simply diversion (diverting attention from the hold to enrollment status).
When you have a hold imposed that only someone else controls when/if it is released, that is bad news.
Their whole "companies do not normally discuss such information when they are in the middle of a regulatory process or dialog, and we do not plan to do so either" is crap. Companies "normally" disclose to their investors, clearly and fully, that their trial has been placed on hold. And they "normally" disclose to their investors, clearly, the reason.
Can someone explain how is this not a violation of 10b-5?
"It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,......To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading,...."
It seems to me that the very fact that an informed investor like Flipper could come up with positive scenarios demonstrates that the disclosure was "misleading".