On other threads the focus seems to have shifted to back and forth criticism of individual contributors and the company board and management. As a not regular participant I hope there will be some civility on a new thread.
I presume that everyone hopes that treatment by paxalisib in all the trials works - imagine the benefit, hope and joy that would provide to patients and their families!
Much comment elsewhere has centred on the cost of the GBM Agile trial and whether KZA has the wherewithall to even contemplate participation without further sizeable raisings. From the beginning of discussion of this trial by the company, it has always seemed to me that the contribution by KZA would be, in an overall sense, relatively minor. No doubt they will provide the drug, but I suspect that any other payment will likely be in low, single digit millions and most likely paid at commencement. The trial is sponsored by the Global Coalition for Adaptive Research (GCAR).
Sponsors usually arrange the finance for a trial. GCAR have been doing this for a long time as demonstrated by this announcement by Greg Hunt, the Australian Health Minister, in October 2017. The link is here:
https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/100-million-fund-to-fight-brain-cancerIncluded in that announcement is the following paragraph:
"Prioritised first investments include the establishment of an Australian arm of the GBM AGILE, an international adaptive trial platform for adults with glioblastoma, which will be co-funded by the Turnbull Government, the Minderoo Foundation’s Eliminate Cancer Initiative and Cure Brain Cancer Foundation."
With the recent raising and SPP, I suspect that arrangements for Paxalisib to enter GBM Agile are near conclusion and so best to ensure the funds are readily available within the company.
Perhaps one final thought on the pricing. The investors in the placement are not stupid I presume. If the trial information announcement had lead to a sharp rise in share price, it is probable that the discount would have been far greater and the overall price achieved very little different that 40c.
Shareholders should, I think, participate in the SPP.
Regards
