MSB (ASX) CHF trial mythbusting

Originally posted by dolcevita ↑

Seriously, you're like a dog with a bone on this. Points for effort though...

Teva set up the trial in such a way as they could review the surrogate endpoints at the interim stage, and walk only if the data was poor. Upon reviewing the data, they walked.

This is the only explanation I can find that fits all the facts.

You're ignoring at least several key facts and also you overlook that you're speculating, and in doing so we have to look at what is more probable, given commercial realities.

It is a fact that commercial priorities have changed for Teva.

Teva have had a seismic cultural shift from aggressively being involved in clinical trials (including being front and centre of MSB's) to generic drugs which do not require any.

Like all companies they want to square off the books pre end of financial year and explain their strategy. There is plenty of indication that Teva is closing the books on anything non-generic with overhang. It's not that Teva can't afford to continue the trials (that would be absurd), it's a question of management decisions consistent with their forward vision.

You think that one term in a contract will be definitive over all events? You have the dog wagging the tail. A contract is meant to represents the intentions of the parties. It doesn't override them if they are in mutual agreement to vary it so that it does reflect renewed intentions based on commercial decisions.

I have pointed this early on, and many others keep pointing out to you but you refuse to take the implications on board. It's a fact that it's open to the parties to negotiate but you act as if the only explanation is that Teva has exercised a termination clause. But not all the evidence stacks up that way.

Contracts don't compel the parties to go a particular way if each agree not to do so. It would be a rare contract that did not have a variation clause, and even without one, it can be implied. I have never seen a contract that states that it cannot be varied by agreement between the parties.

Your post is a clear thinking quagmire.

Just to focus again on the key issue and going with some of your assumptions: supposing that Teva had wanted to walk due to what you claim is poor data and can then press the termination trigger.

- Why would they gift MSB with the IP back with no requirement of consideration for the IP, when according to you, they have terminated for MSB's non fulfilment of key targets?Surely they haven't suddenly become overwhelmed to make gifts?

- Are you saying that the IP is worthless? That can't be right. Because the FDA Committee has approved continuation of the clinical trials, so efficacy must not be a problem as far as they're concerned so despite your speculations based on what you see in the contract, there is no indication that the IP is suddenly worthless. Far from it.

You have ruled out recruitment issues (rightly so, I TU'd you for that). There are other reasons why recruitment will speed up and this is contained in the new identification of damaged tissue and catheter-based delivery system.

Just to be clear because you keep skipping over this point:

There is nothing to say that interim review meant the data enabled Teva to trigger a unilateral right of termination.
What we have is a convergence of events with the end of the financial year approaching.

Your view of events is neither complete nor correct. Please step back and see the logical errors in your assumptions.

Wood and ducks.

Expand

Teva was bound by the terms of the contract .If as you say it didn't suit their commercial model ,so what .Unless this was one of the reasons they could void the contract .

Surely Silvio would not have agreed under such conditions if they were still contractually obligated .

No.	Vol.	Price($)
2	64999	$1.01

No.

Vol.

Price($)

64999

$1.01

Price($)	Vol.	No.
$1.02	64541	3

Price($)

Vol.

No.

$1.02

64541

No.	Vol.	Price($)
1	1	1.030
2	1762	1.020
1	1500	1.010
4	27408	1.005
10	278424	1.000

No.

Vol.

Price($)

1.030

1762

1.020

1500

1.010

27408

1.005

278424

1.000

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.955	9156	1
0.960	31750	3
0.965	2798	1
0.970	37385	4
0.990	1500	1

Price($)

Vol.

No.

0.955

9156

0.960

31750

0.965

2798

0.970

37385

0.990

1500

(20min delay)
Last $1.01		Change -0.065(6.07%)		Mkt cap ! $1.147B

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
$1.05	$1.05	99.5¢	$9.449M	9.298M

Teva was bound by the terms of the contract .If as you say it...

Oceana Lithium's top dog tenders resignation as lithium sector remains in strife

Encounter grows confidence in niobium-REE target in WA

Ordell Minerals kicks off maiden drill run at Barimaia in Murchison, WA

Rio records 14% profit growth in first half, copper production to hit 2% rise for the year

West African Resources hits fresh gold in grade control rilling at Kiaka; mining start set for Q1 2025

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News

Teva was bound by the terms of the contract .If as you say it...

Top Stories

Oceana Lithium's top dog tenders resignation as lithium sector remains in strife

Encounter grows confidence in niobium-REE target in WA

Ordell Minerals kicks off maiden drill run at Barimaia in Murchison, WA

Rio records 14% profit growth in first half, copper production to hit 2% rise for the year

West African Resources hits fresh gold in grade control rilling at Kiaka; mining start set for Q1 2025

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News