I agree with Hottods interpretation but I think there are some...

I agree with Hottods interpretation but I think there are some important distinctions/caveats to be made.

It is true we don't need JSC approval when progressing indications in 2591 outside the current 4 approved ones BUT that does not mean that the handbrake (however theoretical it is) is removed. Acadia can still halt progress at their discretion and whilst JP made comments around it being unlikely and there needs to be advanced plans etc, none of this is spelled out in the contract. Informal understandings are always trumped by formal understandings and its important to keep that risk in mind - even if plenty want to scream at me that its irrelevant.

I also refer to Hottods last point "On the other hand, Acadia does have to share with Neuren/the JSC any proposal to develop trofinetide outside of Rett syndrome or Fragile-X syndrome. ACADIA must inform and seek the approval of the JSC (Ref: 6.2 (a))". I think she is correct but my recollection of the contract was that if their is a dispute in relation to progression of Trofinetide and the vote on the JSC is tied, then the deciding vote rests with Acadia.

I appreciate JP is much more relaxed about this issue than I was some time ago but I think eyes wide open investing is important.

Paradoxically I don't think it will actually impact the TO value too much.