a) its a diagnostic trial, so no need to wait for years of follow up to assess efficacy. The last person is biopsied at the same time they are imaged, so results are known within days. Clarity also has fast-track designation, so if the trial was completed in Feb-25, there was a realistic chance of commercialising by end-2025. At worst, a path to commercialisation would have been clear at some stage in 2025, which would make raising any additional required capital much easier and much cheaper. But nit-picking the commercialisation date of a product from a trial that the company expected to be finished in 2025 is ignoring the elephant in the room. The company expected the trial to take 14 months, its blown out by an as yet undisclosed period, but that period will be at least 100 - 200%. Apart from the delay, it negatively impacts management's credibility and has a profound impact on capital adequacy. Its an elephant that hasn't been missed by most investors, hence the >75% SP reduction.
b) I'm referring to CLARIFY which is Phase 3. I'm not talking about litigation against hospitals, I'm talking about litigation against the Board for failing to keep the market properly informed. Specifically that the trial completion date was going to blow out by such an extent and make no explicit announcement about it. Both a doubling of the expected trial duration and a 75% SP reduction would be considered material. No one is suggesting reporting trial results before they are ready but its entirely unreasonable to know that a trial completion date will blow out by such an extent and not keep the market informed. Failing to do so means that sections of the market are aware at the expense of others. Lawyers love that stuff.
CU6 Price at posting:
$2.08 Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)