Maybe after VB take a peak under the hood, they'll reach the same conclusion as Doc. insofar as strategy is concerned.
I wonder sometimes if at the next annual meeting a question is asked about what was offered just before the secondary and Doc reply "the most BP was offering is $60 mill. upfront", would that change any views here ?, and if they get AA, it would mean Doc strategy was correct all along, if they had license 132 back in 2013, it would have been a monumental mistake.
Back in 2005, I read a report by Goldman Sachs entitled "Chasing Rixtuxan", this highly detailed report explained why Veltuzmab (and other cd20 antibodies) would never challenge Rixtuxan, and doing so would probably bankrupt Immu. Even before the first vial is shipped Immu would have incur costs upwards of $120 mill. and a prime reasons why no BP wants it either. I am still puzzle why some still attack the company on Veltuzmab without provide any rational reasonings.
Most CEO's will tell you mgmt has a fiduciary responsibility to attempt AA,and going it alone, as the company's founding principle model is not to license compounds. In a sense, the company explicitly alert potential stockholders of its intentions. I always believe Doc knows much more about 132's potential and its chances at AA, after peaking under the hood, and emotion subsides, VB might go down the very same path. |
