@aatisket
"Not wishing to put you on the spot (but I guess I am), do you, feel as a shareholder, that you should be told about the yes/no answer that Teva received?
I am just not sure that they can given the FDA ruling on trial data - do you think they could? If the statisticians answer was "yes", the significance is huge. Either way, it is huge but I don't wish to dwell on the "no" answer"
Good question. I can answer as a shareholder. I do have experience in the management of CHF but it's no use to me in this situation where we have to guess to make sense of things we have been told. Guessing won't get us anywhere.
Anyway, as a shareholder I think we should be told everything that Teva was told. Why should they, a shareholder, be able to base investment decisions on things that fellow shareholders remain ignorant about. Sounds illegal to me, if that's what happened.
We are all tangled up with definitions, meanings and semantics in this very important question as to what Teva was told. For instance, does the FDA strong advice not to disseminate any detailed data refer to the statistician's yes/no advice, and/or surrogate endpoints, and/or patient level data? Note the word "any" in the previous sentence. And is a yes/no advice considered to be "detailed" by the FDA. Perhaps going back to the source documents and statements might eliminate some of the possibilities that I note but even then most of us would still remain unsatisfied because of the vagueness and incompleteness of what we have been told.
I think that Teva was told nothing about trial results but the more I read here from people who question that opinion, the less certain I become. The questions are appropriate.
One thing I am sure of, and cling to, is that the contracted conditions that would have allowed Teva to unilaterally cease support are not the only circumstance in which they could withdraw. They could also withdraw by permission of MSB. And that could happen if MSB saw it to their benefit to allow it. MSB might accede to such a request on two conditions. One, all rights to IMC-150-IM revert to MSB and two, MSB has secured significant alternative finance to replace what Teva had to contribute to the trials. I know nil about what securing such finance entails but it seems to me to be a reasonable explanation for the extended time the shares were off the market. Why else 10 days? (that question is an invitation for the experienced to suggest other reasons for the 10 days).
So, we really have to accept that we just don't know and won't know until more detailed and unambiguous information is released.
An answer to my email to Julie Meldrum might help.
Could you please clarify if Teva's withdrawal from the agreement re development of MPC-150-IM was a concession granted by Mesoblast on condition that 100% of the rights to the product revert to Mesoblast or did Teva withdraw in accordance with their rights under the agreement, specifically that certain trial endpoints had not been met?
I am sure you appreciate that there is much investor anxiety around Teva's withdrawal and the lack of clarity for the reason.
I sent it at 09:45 AEST today. If she answers I will post.
(20min delay)