Why are people selling?, page-4

To MOZZ's credit, he is making a valiant effort to speak positively on behalf of the company, but sadly there is mostly JUST SILENCE from the company itself. No attempt by the temporary CEO to address questions like the (now ex) shareholder raised below? Surely she has answers to some of the issues raised by this shareholder. If not, why is she being paid $1 million plus? Nothing from PR either! How can they expect the SP to recover if there is nothing new or positive to be said?

*********************************************************************************

MOZZ: You have speculated on why people are selling PAR. For what its worth, here is part of an answer I received from a friend who is a retired patent lawyer with a science degree. You will no doubt disagree, but this person is very sharp and very experienced, and I suspect may not be the only seller who holds these views."............but the reason I have just sold my holding is not because I am worried about PPS efficacy or safety. I absolutely still believe it is a very safe and effective treatment for pain and inflammation, albeit much harder to prove disease modification. Unfortunately a good product does not guarantee commercial success. Here are my main reasons for selling:
1. Management has missed promise after promise after promise after promise and delay after delay after delay.
2. Over the last 12-18 months, the company has burned more than $50 mil. with VERY LITTLE progress. There must be concern that the remaining $50 mil can be burned without achieving enough good news to support a cap raise or attract a partner.
3. The company is a headless chook until a new CEO is on board and the company must be struggling to find a good one. Skerrett is certainly not CEO material. Fixing problems will take the new CEO 6-12 months. In my view, he/she must abandon all of the peripheral stuff until the main OA P3 trial is fully funded and fully recruited. If it can't get that done, it is cactus.
4. Nearly all of the company's functions are contracted to 3rd parties, so when issues arise, resolving them is very costly and time-consuming. Also, potential partners are very cautious about dealing with companies that are reliant on 3rd party contractors. The new CEO will have some huge challenges. Also, my guess is that any partner will require that bene Artsmittel be directly involved in the deal. That could be good for bene, but probably will substantially dilute PAR's $ and control of terms.
5. IMO the OA IP is weak and indefensible if challenged because there is just too much prior art. Also, the Arthropharm COVID patent is strong and has an earlier priority date so PAR has no hope of successful development of its SARS project unless it secures a license.
6. Prof Felson seems to have lost enthusiasm (see his video) and has raised a couple of concerning issues; e.g. he notes experience with other OA trials where patients in the treated arm got pain relief and then increased their activity only to cause further joint damage whereas the placebo arm got no pain relief and remained more sedentary causing less OA disease progression. The placebo effect is also a very real issue that could significantly compromise the P3 trial results. I also wonder whether the FDA will be happy with the current dosage trial that has just started which is really not a dose escalation trial at all but just various administration protocols which in my view would not even satisfy a P2, but maybe they have somehow got FDA signoff. The OA P3 trial is definitely not a lay down misère, and even less likely to be the definitive pivotal Phase III required for FDA to give marketing approval without further trials.
7. While there is still a chance that the P3 trial will be a technical success, we won't know until 2026 at the earliest and the odds of failure have certainly increased. The chance of partnering before 2026 seems remote; any earlier would at best just be an option with a small up front option fee with big bikkies not until perhaps 2028 if they get marketing approval.
8. An absolute minimum $50 mil. plus cap raise is essential well before the main OA trial can even begin in mid '23. Raising this $ will be very difficult unless the SP is below $1 and the disc. is the max. allowable for instos which is 25%. Many of the recent shareholders will, or probably already are cutting their losses prior to June 30, so this just adds to the downward SP momentum for the next year at least. Overall, I expect the capital markets will become increasingly risk avers for the next couple of years.

Good luck to those willing to hang on. I don't have the patience or courage and other investment options appear to be much more lucrative -- and safer. "Just the views of one shareholder MOZZ, but probably some other sellers are like-minded at present.