Member Info for scott309

In fact, for Scenario 3, they would be in the same position as just about every other small biotech company, needing finance to take the next step. Except Motif would be closer to FDA approval than 99% of them.

Even Scenario 3 gives Motif a path forward and hence a value. The market may not respond accordingly, but IMO it's not a binary decision in the next few days as some suggest.

Motif would have had discussions about deals over the last year or 2 and are probably sitting on conditional offers or discussed terms of deals, so there's no way they would be able to buy shares at the moment or for the last year or more. IMO they will be insiders to all sorts of price sensitive information.

You've been saying that the FDA have given MTFB their decision, which I think is highly unlikely, particularly if MTFB have given them additional information. This isn't a regular company or parish meeting, where simple decisions are made off the cuff. I think the FDA are in total control and just take in information, which needs to be properly processed within the 30days.

If MTFB gave them information in the meeting, the FDA are not likely to respond in the meeting, 'oh, that's alright then, it's approved!' They know they have 30 days to respond so they'll use it. IMHO! :-)

IMHO, there will be minutes in the strict sense of the word, but then a whole lot more added, including their decision on the way forward.
I think it's inconceivable that MTFB know the exact outcome and haven't acted on it in some way, in which case it would have leaked.

OK, they may have an idea of the outcome in general terms, but they won't have been told it will be approved or require particular labeling or further trials. There is guidance on the nature of the meeting and what to expect from the minutes and they can definitely add information, advice or anything they like, it's their procedure, so they set the rules.
It's not like a regular company meeting, where you would be rightly annoyed if the minutes didn't reflect exactly what was said and agreed.

They know what was said in the meeting, but they don't know the outcome. The minutes aren't a straightforward record of what was said, the FDA can add to what was said and that presumably includes any judgment, assessment or further advice. If they're presented with information, it's highly unlikely they would give an off -the-cuff assessment and detailed way forward in the meeting. They would just gather any additional information they need to make their further judgment.
Agreed, Ivyspivey

The link up with Lamellar has got nothing to do with their on-going ABSSSI treatment application.
It's only for Cystic Fibrosis which is at a very early stage.
If anything the link-up is an endorsement of Iclaprim, i.e. the elevated liver enzymes problem, which Lamellar must have been aware of, are not a concern for them.

They were clearly short of money in Feb without any contingency and it's not much different now. They're now valued at about £30m and about £115m in February but in terms of progress, clearly not share price, which was my point, they're further on, having ticked off efficacy with just liver toxicity to get cleared.

IMO they're in a better position now than they were at 40p+ going into the Feb review. Now just focusing on one issue (?) - more testing/trials or labeling solution to resolve or (qualified) approval? From what's happened so far, it doesn't seem like an outright rejection is an option at this stage for the FDA. Just costs for additional data to be deducted from the approval value.
A rejection could surely only come after supplying any additional data, which didn't meet their criteria for acceptance (unlikely after Lamellar jv), but symptoms of a serious liver toxicity problem would have been obvious before now even if measurements/data weren't sufficient. AIMH(non-medical)O.