It will likely be dismissed. As I posted yesterday, Missling's handling of Rett seems less far less troubling than AD. Company communications in a formal setting trumps the clinicaltrials.gov database entries. I think the quality of the Rett Excellence PR was good and most importantly, they guided primary endpoints a few months earlier in a PR (which was followed Jan 2). Avatar is more sketchy due to the timing of the endpoint changes. But only an idiot would have believed Missling when he stated it could be a pivotal trial. Caveat emptor. Any reasonable investor knew it could never be more than a P2. The law firm also has no understanding of how the RSBQ-AUC was calculated and used the pharmacokinetic definition rather than the summation of response over time. If the case dose survive, I don't know enough about disclosure to know if the SAP would need to be presented --- Avatar could have issues here if thee was outright lying about the timing of the endpoint change.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
