Replies to post #99099 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[A_Good_Day_2]

None of that matters. Data was spectacular at 12 months. If 15-month data was released the pps would not have moved hardly at all, even if it continued to be spectacular. The trial is not designed to prove efficacy and no serious investor is going to give it more than anecdotal, speculative meaning.

The real value of the 2a results is in dose optimization and safety. That was already proven earlier in the study.

All that is important now is 2/3 starting. Once data from that trial starts being reported (if it is good) we will launch.

[bocce]

Quote: "...it wasn't as good as they hoped...: is IMO the least likely explanation. If the abstract of the 15-month data had NOT been disclosed, then arguably the company would not have an obligation under the securities laws to release 15-month data that "wasn't as good as they hoped". However, since the abstract had been disclosed, the failure to disclose 15-month data that "wasn't as good as they hoped" would expose the company to 10b-5 claims for "omitting 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". All IMO

[Whiskey/Sausage]

I disagree with you that 'it wasn't as good as they hoped,' because the data already WAS as good as they hoped and better at 12 months. (You're basically saying 'they wouldn't go to the baseball game if it rains' but last week, they went to the baseball game and it also didn't rain) - in essence, your argument is rooted in an illogical loop of disregarding facts.

Here's the only scenario that makes sense - because the data was unequivocally good as indicated in December release (Seriously, can we put the 'bad data' question to rest already?)

Anavex put the poster in place as a holder (because they had to submit for it ~3 months ago) - they had 5 or six type holders. Then they got a deal of sorts with a BP, probably Biogen, to exclusively license 2-73 for MS.

Dr. M tells them they can use 2-73 for MS, but they CAN'T use 2-73 for Alz or Retts or Parkinsons, (Because Retts and MJFF have already funded 2-73 for those indications, so to cancel 2-73 for those clinical's would be in poor taste) or that Biogen can partner with those other indications, but it'll be a tighter licensing deal. These negotiations go on for months. They reach a conclusion in March-ish, and due to stipulations, 2-73 has to be held under wraps until the official contract announcement which alone can take MONTHS to get right and signed off on. In the meantime, or maybe per Dr. M's specific request, Anavex has engineered a protection plan with the poison pill to protect the company from uninvited accumulation, knowing that once the cat is out of the bag, there's no f-ing way they're getting it back in.

Why Biogen? Because they've lost 20% of their stock value and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in recent months due to failure and poor outlook. Biogen is on the verge of desperation and will buy or license anything to save it.

There may be other partners, but they are not on the radar. Maybe there will be a partner per region (Asia, US, Europe) who knows. To speculate would be simply speculation for the sake of having something to talk about.

Worst case scenario, the April SHM is in regards to raising cash to go it alone - but if that was the case, he'd have released data to keep the company in the spotlight and keep the share price higher (if cash raise was his intention).

So, IMHO, a 'PR moratorium on 2-73 is likely due to a BP partnership,' which should be explained better after the SHM.

Otherwise f-it, I (and no one else) has any idea what the hell is going on and we are all just a bunch of badgering ladies at a bake sale trying to tell ourselves that our brownies are the best or your apple pie is not, or how you would have made the muffins with choclate chips instead of blueberries for one reason or another, and oh by the way, how do you think next month's quilting-fest will go?