Hi Buzz,I should say upfront that I am no expert in Bio or...

Hi Buzz,

I should say upfront that I am no expert in Bio or Investing for that matter and although I was a lawyer once upon a time, those days are long behind me, so my interpretation is as valid as the next person.

I think the issue I run into is the wording in the contract (can't find it at the moment) that stipulates (and I am paraphrasing here) that Neuren can't trial/launch a product that clashes with Acadia - if Acadia is trialling something for that syndrome/symptom/indication.

I believe it is a hangover from the original contract for Trofinetide and while there was a carve out for the 4 specific indications we are trialling currently with 2591, I believe that the original stipulation about no competing trials/products still remains.

The clause was broad but that is what worries me and in part, it relies on the good will of Acadia not to enforce.

The question I have is - what happens if along the lines it becomes clear to Acadia that they are not going to snag 2591 and a BP is going to swoop in and get it. If you were Acadia management, would you meekly sit and watch or would you rapidly launch trials in a whole range of Autism Spectrum Disorders (excluding the 4 we are currently trialling) to block any potential competitor to Trofinetide? Even if you were not doing it maliciously, it would make good business sense to do so and even if you could argue your way out of that decision, who is to say that an agitated shareholder doesn't sue you (the CEO and Board) for not discharging their fiduciary duty to the shareholder by maximising company value, through the promotion or Trofinetide and restriction of a superior drug.

I appreciate many won't agree - that's the beauty of these forums - but its a nagging worry I can't seem to shake.