Possibly a new direction?, page-8

I'm going to cut down this furphy that the contract with Acadia is a roadblock to a TO. This is a line you've been peddling for a while now and I'm sorry to say it is pure garbage. I'm sure you remember Hottod correcting me when she pointed out Neuren does not need to seek Acadia's permission for undisclosed new indications for 2591. These initial clauses are not overridden by the clause that states Acadia has final say on which disease they want to classify as an indication because Acadia has to act in good faith which is a legal requirement in the US. If Acadia deliberately tried to stymie Neuren when Neuren has progressed undisclosed indications for 2591 when Acadia themselves have presented no competing data then they are reneging on their contractual obligations. You can't have it both ways here, it's either Acadia has final say or they have to adhere to these clauses which inhibits them from arbitrarily claiming indications. There are mechanisms in place that should both parties be aiming for treating a given disease (presumably with competing data dossiers), then they will go through the process of negotiating who will eventually take it. Only at the end of an exhaustive process could Acadia exercise their final say. That's fair, it's there in writing.

Remembering Jon's recent comment about Acadia needing to present data for indications (or something similar), you intimated that Jon could say anything he wants but he's still bound to the contract. Jon is the person whose comments I'm likely to give precedence to over a poster from here.

I do not accept that Neuren is hamstrung by this contract. On the contrary, I believe they are largely free from fear or favour. There is plenty of room for both parties to succeed financially, imo the constitution of the contract is such that it enables Neuren or a potential acquirer to realise great value. What will it be, eyes wide open or head in the sand?