The complaint's AUC definition was poor, and there were some other mistakes. Unfortunately, these firms have several opportunities to amend their complaint, to "serve justice". Too often, it's just because the lawyer is cranking out complaints and not getting them right the first time. I wish judges would take that as a cue that the lawyer is fishing, but judges are lawyers too.
There seems to be just enough to proceed to the discovery phase. The law firm will likely hire an expert in clinical trials. Then Anavex will have to disclose its SAP plans.
Discovery if granted and giving access to eg. the SAP is the only way to potentially make a case that the company’s statements about the AVATAR trial and endpoints were false or the company omitted material information.
I will be looking for the wording of the company’s defence lawyers motion to dismiss.
If denied, then what will the amended and consolidated complaint cause say based on information gained during discovery?
Either way that should help to dismiss or confirm investor suspicions of the Anavex approach to clinical trials and their readouts.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
