I agree with the Baldwix interpretation of the contract that...

I agree with the Baldwix interpretation of the contract that Acadia has a veto right for New Indications. It is what it is. However I have gotten comfort on the point. I view the veto right as an asset of Acadia that it can monetize each time a New Indication is sought. I own both Neuren and Acadia stock, and my Acadia shares may benefit from what I’ll call this veto right asset. NNZ-2591 is clearly superior to Trofinetide. It is 20x stronger and has no GI issues. In my humble view, Acadia will not want to pursue New Indications with Trofinetide and instead want to participate in the New Indications by using NNZ-2591. Acadia gets a seat at the table for every New Indication by threatening a veto, and in exchange for its consent can get cash and/or a participation. Alternatively, Acadia could hold its breath and exercise the veto, and go it alone on the New Indication, with a lesser drug with GI issues and problems with retention. In short, the veto right gets Acadia a seat at the table for every New Indication. Acadia gets a monetary interest in every New Indication for not using the veto. However, in my humble opinion, the New Indications don’t get shut down. What is Acadia’s share of New Indications? Whatever the parties can agree upon. When modeling for stock price, consider attributing a 70/30 Neuren Acadia split for New Indications.
this is my hypothesis and not investment advice