General discussion, page-17555

Mate - time for some honesty.

First, where has Incannex used this new wording to describe the departure of Dr Sud from the company?

Second, and assuming for a moment that you can produce the source of that quote: do you actually think there is something suspicious in that change of wording regarding the decision to part ways with Dr Sud?

How often do you think any company spells out every reason why they part ways with a collaborator? Surely you are not that naive. There is nothing inherently shadowy in presenting a polite, non-incendiary, and dignified face when making such announcements. Personally I'm the same way about my ex partners when I explain to friends why we're not an item anymore. Are you the kind of guy who bad mouths them? I'm generally more inclined to be a gentleman about it, but that's just me. Airing publicly her every shortcoming isn't a great approach and whenever I hear someone doing that, I suspect they are attacking to conceal some flaw of their own that might have been more central to the breakup. It isn't a good look. Decorum in business is valuable.

So what, if Incannex saw shortcomings in Sud and those contributed to the decision but were not mentioned publicly. So what?. This in no way indicates that they had knowledge of any crimes Dr Sud may have committed at any time. Shortcomings can cover a lot of ground, and frankly, now that Dr Sud is embroiled in a legal issue linked to actions he took completely separate from his past involvement with Incannex, would it not be human for Incannex to want to put a little more distance between themselves and him? Assuming your quote is real.

Articulate, if you are capable of it, exactly how any of this affects the fundamentals of Incannex? How does this undermine in any way the value of our assets? And if you are tempted to say this undermines confidence in the BOD because they were once associated with a person who now has a lawsuit against them... that would probably describe almost every company in the United States, in case you aren't aware just how litigious the culture is there. The value Dr Sud brought to Incannex was in the form of three drug important drug candidates that possess not only strong therapeutic and monetary potential, but also strategic development advantages. The mistake the BOD could have made, but didn't, would have been to pass on receiving that contribution from Dr Sud. That would have been stupid, unless you think Incannex would be better off without IHL-216a, IHL-42x and IHL-675a.

I've come across a number of problematic individuals in the course of my career... some occasionally toxic, some dishonest in various ways. Rarely though, have I questioned why they were hired because they also happened to be talented, and delivered high quality work. The greater the talent, the more management was willing to put up with from them: in business, every decision is a trade-off. A problematic collaborator that might be showing various red flags of one variety or another is worth hanging on to, until they aren't any longer. The rational assessment here is that the BOD was either smart enough, or merely lucky enough, to decide Dr Sud was not worth continuing with... well before his potential offending came to light. The people who should potentially be worried about their reputations are those who are still in business with Dr Sud, not those who decided to part ways with him before all this.

So to make this as simple as possible for you: IHL-216a, IHL-42x, IHL-675a = valuable assets. Sud = potential liability. Incannex today owns those assets, and let go of Sud well over a year ago. Those are the facts. If you have anything more than innuendo and conspiracies, feel free to share with the class.