Where are the possible areas of enquiry? (a)Taylor Collison's...

Where are the possible areas of enquiry? 
(a)Taylor Collison's behaviour - accepting its appointment as advisor in event of positive read-out, then selling out significantly. Would this constitute misleading and deceptive behaviour? They would inevitably say that it would never hold a substantial investment into a binary outcome, so the two are unconnected. But ought it have disclosed to shareholders or ought the board disclosed to shareholders that its appointed advisor had a significant investment in the company that it was divesting? Clearly, its appointment was considered a positive development by retail shareholders. If they had known that TC was a holder and was in the process of a substantial divestment would shareholders have responded differently? Did this in effect take advantage of retail shareholders facilitating TC's divestiture?

 (b) Reading the most recent announcement, I am curious how it was not apparent to the company as the trial unfolded that all patients (placebo and VG) were recovering at comparable rates. Presumably, this would not assist long term holders, but certainly those who invested closer to read-out might have an avenue to explore ( I certainly and stupidly topped up in the weeks ahead of the read-out).

(c) What due diligence did the Board do on the efficacy of VG vs SC before embarking on the clinical trial 

In my view following up ancient history about the QUT would be a waste of resources, except to the extent that it may have been relevant to the due diligence question in para (c). 

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I had thought of throwing my hat in the ring and offering my own services as a commercial/corporate lawyer to investigate, but I don't think, given my personal losses and how they have affected me, I would have the necessary professional dispassionate detachment to provide the requisite advice.