Member Info for The.Italian

only a few trades so far but all indicative buys with steadily increasing ask.Level2 looking weighted in favour of bid

the FDA is not i repeat not legally obliged to grant a meeting. it can refuse .obviously it would be surprising if it were to refuse after stating in the CRL that further data needed but to suggest it had no choice is incorrect and misleading.the inference to be drawn is that the response at least warrants the holding of a meeting

keithbfk at the risk of being accused of frivolity id now say sod the fountain just give me a small canteen! in our particular desert a canteen would be better than nothing.seriously i still think we will get somewhere .there have been lots of pieces of this particular jigsaw put together over the last 3 years or so .if pomander were still here he would probably still be talking about stake building and takeovers and perhaps thats where we will end up. The jigsaw may be smaller than we first though but if it does get finally assembled we may still profit in the end.just musing to keep up spirits

interesting posts today.sidmr yes do expect the venturex holding to be disposed in some way through jm.he always seems to have a way of dealing with these sort of things and the financial clout to do so..i just hope its done in the shareholders interests and not just an exercise in clever financial engineering.agree it will be good to remove the historic legacy holding.prof z i agree thats its good to draw a line under the tax case my spleen yesterday was largely directed at the failure to make provision in the accounts which i felt was unjustified.anyway its history now and the removal of uncertainty is a positive.bignose yes interested to see what further anuouncwwements bring.blinkerd action imo to rely categorically on counsels advice re the tax position.all litigation carries risk and particularly so in tax matters.some provision should have been made in the accounts.probably the financial position at the time made it prudent not to, but anyway its history now.i always take heart from your onwards and upwards approach its the only way really but I'm afraid I've reached the point and particularly the age where the prospect of being taken out at say 70centd is looking more and more appealing..now wheres my crystal ball!

agreed Ivy.im going to stop posting on the speculation and simply await events.mistake to get too involved personally

zimzimmer.entirely agree with you last sentence. apologies for fuelling the speculation must try to resist the temptation .also agree with your thought re the good doctor.i have reached an age when even retired policeman seem young to me but a 21 year old doctor?.could be a PHD of course but still a bit young for that and not entirely sure that his posts demonstrate the objectivity and critical analysis ability which would be expected of a doctoral thesis.just my opinion

Golden Dust clearly we are not going to agree about calamaris interpretation of matters and i respect your right to reach whatever conclusion you come to on this but just to comment on the suggestion that perhaps the pr people will have been advised by their lawyers to reply as they did..im afraid i don't buy that.obviously they could not state that they did not consult experts as that would be misleading and possibly actionable in some circumstances.however i am sure the ingenuity of the pr dept could have come up with some anodyne or meaningless response(e.g. we are not in a position to give out any information not already in the public domain etc)which would not lay them open to any comeback.equally the could simply not have responded. they are under no obligation to respond to investors queries.ok that might not have looked good and would give rise to conspiracy theories galore but i don't for a second imagine the company is remotely bothered about that.aim companies don't exactly have a good history of responding openly to questions in times of difficulty.i was expecting at best a meaningless response and probably none at all hence my take that its a positive.i entirely accept that this is just my interpretation and can be entirely wrong but i don't think it can be assumed that motif felt constrained to reply for legal reasons.for the record i entirely agree with your concerns over funding. its all going to come down to timing of the FDA response, the attitude of potential funders and associated matters which we can only guess at.I accept entirely that this is a very perilous situation and may still end in disaster.it may also end in a much more positive way if we get approval.

calamari in turn i would ask that you read carefully what i have said.i have not stated that you have categorically said new trials will be required.i said"almost"categorical.in your post of 15.42 you state that it sounds like they have already done everything they can short of new phase three trial.this seems to me like a fairly categorical conclusion to that effect and it make no allowance for the possibility of other issues such as labelling being an appropriate method to proceed to approval.your 16.11 post carries a similarly strong implication which i do not feel is currently justified by the information in motifs statement.i may be wrong but so may you.rest assured i am fully aware of the approach of the FDA to the approval process and am under no misapprehension that they will take any decisions on any grounds other than safety. the financial stability of motif is of no concern to the FDA and as you can see from my history here i have never endorsed any posts claiming that theFDA should have regard to the companys position or indeed the wider need for antibiotics.i am therefor unsure why you should suggest albeit only by implication that i am under such a misapprehension.only time will tell which of us is right.

calamari neither you nor i know what motif may be required to do.your conclusion is that they will be required to carry out further trials.that may prove to be correct but at this point it just does not sit well with the statement that no indication at that point of further trials being required. if the crl had said we have had your evidence on liver tox including the experts opinions but we need further data about issues "x"and "Y' then if such issues were ones which inevitably could only be resolved by further trials motif would not have been able to make the statement of no indication of them being required at that point.my point is that your almost categorical statement that further trials will be required is simply not supported by the companys statements to date.this may change but in my view your conclusion is not currently justified.i accept of course that you are perfectly entitled to reach it, as i am to reach mine.

no calamari.false conclusions.they would not have stated no indication at that point of further trials if your reasoning were correct.

excellent n4apenny.i regard that as very good news.not the fact that they consulted 3 liver experts as such but the fact that the PR team are prepared to respond with a substantive reply.if motif were worried about it they would have instructed them either not to respond or to give some meaningless response.i regard this as highly positive.thanks very much for your efforts.beginning to look like a labelling issue to me just my opinion of course

nonsense my good doctor.if that was the case the FDA would simply have rejected the application outright!

DBB that makes sense.just speculation of course but it has logical consistency.

been out for a while but pleased to see we've gone blue.feeling very positive!

yes PG very interesting!

rise hall entirely agree with that.as to the timing of the reply package submission its all speculation but with great respect to ivy for once i disagree. the impression i get is that it has only gone in relatively recently.for me there is the slightest of inferences to that effect to be drawn from yesterdays RNS.why include a reference to it if it was historic. .no facts just speculation.personally i would not be concerned at all if it wasn't submitted till last week as i agree that the greatest care needs to be take in formulating the reply.just think its important for holders to adjust their expectations as to timescales for news.

agreed top aimer

ok so much for my judgment.more than happy to be proved wrong!

yes I'm looking for 1.4-1.5p on news in near future.

is trading normally today.currently up about 1%.it would not be doing this if it had been sold