Pipeline-in-a-drug, page-127

Yeah I am positing that it could be a problem but I am an inherently anxious person that sees risks, even where others don't. Primsen said they are theoretical and perhaps he is correct. As I said though, my legal days are well and truly behind me, so a real, competent lawyer can give you an actual and valid interpretation of the restriction.

I just don't think paying $150m for NNZ 2591 for Retts and FX is material or in any way indicative of a desire to let Neuren develop 2591 unfettered.

If Acadia had absolutely no intention of holding Neuren over a barrel and never intended to exercise their rights to block Neuren from properly exploring 2591, which was the case in the original contract if my recollection is correct, then why would they not remove all restrictions in the contract in full? Why not say that they want restrictions on FX and Retts for 2591, cause they are paying for that privilege and that needs to be baked into the contract but at the same time provide an explicit carve out for all other indications, cause we have no intention of pursuing the others and even if we did, we have no intention of stopping you exploring the potential of your drug?

Neither has happened.

The contract clearly stipulates that we are free to explore PMS, PHS, AMS and PWS. It also very clearly states that we are free to explore other conditions for 2591 and that we can decide what happens to 2591 in all conditions (excluding FX and Retts). If there is a dispute in relation to 2591, we get to decide how that dispute unfolds in the event the JSC can't reach a conclusion.

All of the above is in the contract and yet there is still a carve out wherein if we happen to pursue an indication that they decide they want to pursue as well, at any stage of the development process mind you, they can decide to unilaterally put forward a Proposal (as defined) to the JSC for a New Indication and the JSC, would meet, both parties would exercise their one vote and if Acadia vote in their own interests and Neuren does the same (which would happen), then the final decision making power rests with Acadia. Which way do you think they will vote??

It may seem remote but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility and I prefer to look at actions to infer intentions. If the intention was to engage as you and others have suggested then the contract should reflect that but it doesn't, it has provision for the scenario I can see unfolding.

It may be a case of good lawyering on their end, in that it protects their interests if something egregious happens between the parties but it may not be and may be the case that they are fully aware of the restriction and have no idea of removing it.

Even if you are right and the intention is absolutely not to enforce any restrictions, my view remains the same - a very simple change of management could make things really problematic for us.

I genuinely hope I am wrong and you and others are right!