Replies to post #11203 on RespireRx Pharmaceuticals Inc (RSPI)

[davidal66]

I don't quite buy the impossibility of structuring a deal around the high impacts at the pre-clinical stage. Seems, as usual, he contradicted himself on the topic of a high impact deal. When the hold was issued, he talked about talking to large pharma for a high impact partnership, even mentioned dates like early 2007,8... when such a deal would be inked: "neurodegeneration." But, in his latest call, he said there was no interest without CX717 as a lead. Hell, that sounds like news to me. In the past, he mentioned he could do a deal, but the upfronts would be ultra-low in the 2-5 million dollar range.

I suspect, the good doctor was not interested in subjecting his high impacts to a partnership for a few million in upfronts, losing control... better to "hold them back" for a mega deal? Right, Dr. Stoll? So, which is it: is there zero interest for high impacts without a lead at the preclinical stage? Will we still be in lead optimization at the 2012 Olympics?

I think it comes down to trust for me. Had another CEO with some biotech savy been at the helm in April of 2006 at the time of the hold, I believe that CX701 would have been well into clinical testing phase I at this juncture, and I also believe a deal, perhaps not the greatest, would have been crafted for the high impacts.

[Aiming4]

Davidal - neither agreeing or disagreeing with the majority of your post, lots of food for thought there.

But on one point, i.e. Cortex mgmt not wanting a sale at the $1.60 level, I think it's also plausible they would be against such an offer because:

1) They don't feel it's fair value for the company as it stands today.

2) They feel it's probable that value can be increased in the company, so a future buyout is closer to being equitable.

I fully agree and understand that Cortex mgmt will also be motivated by what happens to their options, and this could cause a conflict of interest with what investors want.

But I think there are also legit reasons mgmt might oppose a buyout at the 1.60 level.

[neuroinv]

This is undoubtedly a thankless task, but there is some rewriting of history here which is inaccurate, unfair, and precludes an objective assessment of how Cortex would best proceed.
1) <<don't feel Stoll has done his job with any degree of follow through, detail, competance of regulatory issues, or even biotechnology savy. >>

This does not seem congruent with the untangling of the complicated artifact issue, which resulted in Neurology's oh-so-slow release of the limits on CX717.

2) <<If Stoll had kept pace with CX701 development and kept his June timetable for IND submission and July for starting the phase I trial, we wouldn't be at 80 cents today>>

So if the IND had been submitted in June--without the consultant vetting which turns out to have been in vain--if the financing had thus not been done beforehand, do you think they would have sold 7 million shares @ 2.00? No, it would have been closer to 1.00. It's not clear to me how raising half the money (or issuing twice the shares) would be to Cortex's advantage now. And the share price would not be higher now.

3) << I'm sure he demonstrated zero interest for a "low ball" deal for the high impacts>>

You listened to the conference call, you know better than that. No one would take a high impact deal that does not even have a lead preclinical compound--without taking the major low-impacts as well. If you can name a partnership ever done for a neuro platform that did not even have an identified preclinical lead, please cite it. I can't. So presuming that Stoll was resisting entreaties for a high impact deal is unfounded.

4) <<when the Shire trial blew up, the Board acted and fired him>> That's not quite how it happened. Shire blew up the trial halfway through because they'd reached the deadline and Simmon insisted that they either pay for the program then or give it back. That was seen as a tactical error on his part, that it might have been better to give Shire more time. This, along with what was seen as the subpar Servier/Organon deals, sealed it for Vince.

5) <<I seem to recall Dr. Lynch taking the helm for a short period of time in the past during one of these "transition" periods.>>

No. When Alan Steigrod was fired, CFO Scott Hagen filled in until Vince Simmon was hired. When Simmon was fired, Stoll was hired from the BOD. If Lynch ever filled in, it was before 1995, I don't think it happened. With all due respect to Gary, I'm sure he would agree it would be a terrible idea.

6) <<Enough of this dawdling>>

You've got to be kidding.

NeuroInvestment