Agreed - seems mostly positive, and while understandably vague on the issues that have dragged out the arbitration, I don't see anything particularly bad here in this letter today.
I wonder what the 'new information' was that has made them reconsider adding the large pool of new patients was though. A reassessment of the safety data? Or some realization that they might have sufficient data anyway to get to the 10% difference they were looking for in the initial study design?
Either way - it boosts the confidence at least a bit here to get some information. Still obviously a risky play - but maybe not as risky as some worst-case scenarios I had been thinking over.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
