Either there is enough "to go around" from what Glenhill speculates to be the outcome of the stroke trial or what management derives from Data Safety Monitoring Board statements about the progress of the trial wrap up and data analysis OR the company itself is hedging the outcome influence of Glenhill by providing a counter influence to determine what to do if the results are "robustly" positive. Part of this drama involves pre-publication of trial results prior to their appearance in peer reviewed journals to give some notion of the "patient benefits" from the intervention, "implications for potential further benefits" from interventions for analogous neuro/cardio linked disorders, and the "earning power" attendant to both. The rest of the story,as it were, involves the PMA submission, baiting the hook, and overtly developing a broad based marketing plan. In this way NMTI can go the full or partial partner (by country/geography) route or the sale of the business to the most appealing courtship. Having Glenhill in the mix will keep this process honest, since the comapny and Glenhill have somewhat different financial interests involved. Assuming a great trial outcome, let us see who can play this game with the best interests of the shareholder in mind. Pax
They were right. Probably knew stuff we didn't. I am lucky having followed them and not up very well, still holding because there is lots of up room in these shares and I don't see much down side risk.
You don't know the difference between your and you're. Check your post. I sold at 20 and I do have different handles. Figure it out. It's not Jeremy. Bt the way, a cure for recurrent stroke is a lot different than a cure for migraines, and a lot of doc's believe in it or AGA, NMTI and others would not be selling so many.