Another person who likes to argue then, rather than actually...

Another person who likes to argue then, rather than actually discuss PAR dynamics. I am so clearly saying a partnerhsip more likely by the virtue of the threat of legal culpabiliity should it NOT ensue FDA clearance, and not actually suggesting a class action likely.

You are entirely missing the point of discussion (that others clearly got) and point of interest for PAR shareholders. But at least you got one upvote from another who struggles to read. Good for you. Meanwhile, per my point, Directors are actually making guidance in more formal financial media settings that makes it more than the partnership 'pump' that PR has encouraged for the last 4 years to no formally disclosed headway.

PR himself had a very elaborate discussion with popular financial media commentaor Alan Kohler in July. Its not the only guidance that has been given, but a very good example:

AK: "What are the documents you've got in front of the FDA now? What's the actual decision you're waiting for? What have you got to with - because when I spoke to you last, you just got approval from the FDA to start the trials, right? So that's now...
PR: "Yes...."
AK: "four and a half or nearly five years on. Where have you got to? What are the documents that you've got before them?
PR: "Yeah, so during that period, we continued to develop and research our product by way of a dose ranging study, which was approved by the FDA. So, we were looking at differing doses to establish the lowest effective dose of our drug for the phase three trial and that was a question that was outstanding with the FDA. So, we undertook a study with 600 subjects to determine that our lowest effective dose was two milligram per kilogram twice weekly. And so the document that we have in front of the FDA is all of the evidence to show them that lower doses are not as effective as our two milligram per kilogram dose, which we had explained to the FDA previously that we felt that that was the most effective dose to use in humans. But the FDA wanted us to confirm via a study that we had the lowest effective dose, and that's what we've done."

AK: "Is that two milligrams per kilogram, is that per dose, per injection?
PR: Per injection, yes. So two milligrams per kilogram, a hundred kilogram person gets two mil of the drug. So therefore, we believe that that was our most effective dose, the lowest effective dose, and so the agency asked us the question during that time that we were just talking about that time period, we undertook this dose ranging study, which was a lead-in to the phase three study. So, the dose ranging question had to be answered with the FDA before we got into the phase three study."
"So we've done that now, we've got that document in front of the FDA, we're just waiting for them to give us clearance to go ahead with that dose. And I think after that decision, we then have a very clear path forward, and then I think the investors will see that now we've removed a lot of the risks or the questions that were arising from that earlier period."

And crucially, per my point above that you absolutely ignored, very specific and unequivocal guidance to the market and shareholders, prospective or existing:

AK: And where are you going to get the money for that from? Are you going to partner it at this point or just raise more equity?
PR: Well, our preference would be to have a co-funding partner, so a pharmaceutical company. We are in discussions with a number of companies. We have discussed with those companies the possibility of them assisting with the funding, they may fund the bulk of that or they may fund a component of that. And then the remainder come from other partnering deals that we might have in regional areas such as China or South America and that money contributes up to a total pot of being able to fund it via partnerships as opposed to going back to investors and offering them equity. Given the low share price, our preference is not to go back to the market, but we have to do what we have to do to get the money to keep the program running.

This is very specific and clear guidance to the market, that Paul would struggle to walk back on and would not elaborate on so specifically without some substance to it; he is not too stupid to understand his culpability - always my obvious point.