Replies to post #122641 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[nidan7500]

IMO if Anavex removed MS from its website its because they are not going to develop it any longer, it could, therefore, mean that Biogen is and we will hear this soon....

This makes sense. And, we need to not constrain ourselves in discussing what is possible in the context of new rules, methods and conventions. This is particularly true on PR/news release/events. Compliance w/SEC rules is probably not going to change right away but lets not base our future comm. expectations on historical models.

[F1ash]

A canceling of the material transfer agreement between the two parties would cause an immediate need to file an 8K because it would be equally a reportable event that constitutes major significance

I would caution against using that assumption for making investment decisions on AVXL stock.

I believe it's not a correct statement.

One would have to see the specific language of the agreement to know for sure. It could be worded that they simply wanted to perform certain tests and would notify Anavex if they were interested in A2-73 by (X) date which could be of any duration (years even).


I don't believe Anavex is obligated to disclose what the results were, even though it might seem reasonable to investors that they should be required to disclose that info.

[attilathehunt]

Anders - you are correct. I posted such two days ago after exchanging emails with IR.

The MTA is still active - meanning Biogen is still interested.

The pipeline report changed because it shows only what we can control. Since Biogen in effect controls A2-73 for MS, it makes sense it wasn't listed.

I hope will hear something on MS before the Rett trial begins. Having Biogen come out and say they are moving forward with A2-73 for MS is like loading the bases and Rett starting is like a home run...Grand slam home run! That is how I see it happening. Tip of the iceberg!

[Steady_T]

You are assuming that there is some sort of ongoing arrangement with Biogen. I think that is not correct.

What little we know of the MTA suggests that it is a document that specifies at most 2 series of tests, with the second series being contingent on success of the first series. As such it has a clear ending of the agreement written in to it.

So if the testing is done to completion, the agreement expires. There is no cancellation involved. So I don't see a requirement for an 8K. It is a normal ending of an agreement according to the terms.