I think a new CEO will be installed, but sometime after she gets the deal done.
In my mind, the suitors have been dealing with MM for many years already, and the company is moving forward by doing things that pharma require of them. Once you tick enough boxes for pharma they don't care who the CEO is at the time but they care who will take it forward. If they are buying, or partnering a product or company, and they want a new CEO installed because its suits their agenda, then it will happen .......but it should be part of a deal, not a pre-condition at this early stage. For mine, it will depend on what sort of deal they get. Often these deals are miserly and only enough to help the company limp through to the next stage. The question at hand whether they are ready for P3, or whether P2b is required
Regardless, MM has done a good job on the smell of an oily rag and despite the very long time this has been going, the timing is still right. HIV progress world wide has been incredibly slow as pharma seek to profit from daily regimes.
I go back to the statements made in the past "we are aligned". This hints strongly that what I say about pharma calling the shots is true. MM has many contacts and knows the story of HIV very well. I wouldn't be judging her too harshly myself.
There will certainly come a time when a big hitter will need to take reins but imho, it's not the time. This may change during the year as the CV issue unfolds (or not) and the HBV fires up.
The chairman, according to some here who are closer to the company than me, hasn't done much over years. Also PN's use-by date maybe approaching faster than MM's. I remember a long conversation with him a few years back .....but I ended the conversation realising that I understood much more about the state of play of HCV than he did.
Thanks for a thread with some hope of a decent discussion.
