Worthind,What you fail to understand is that the downside risk...

Worthind,

What you fail to understand is that the downside risk surrounding ATC increases every day that AVX fails to find a partner with big pharma. Thus, it doesn't matter how good the interim results are, if there is no partner, and if the cash runs out, the merged entity will go into administration. I agree with AVX management that the headline efficacy and safety data from ATC phase IIb looks good: but the fact that big pharma didn't sign up over the last 12 months (despite the best efforts of AVX management) sends a signal that there are some doubts regarding ATC. I suspect that these doubts have little to do with the safety or efficacy of ATC, but perhaps more to do with the potential commercial return on the drug. In any event, it is unfair to force PGL shareholders to take on the ATC risk. They deserve a choice: If they like ATC, then they can go and buy AVX. IF they don't like ATC, then they can choose between 100% cash back at $1.10 or shares in a viable early/mid stage biotech like a merged PGL-CYT (or a combination of shares and cash).

Regarding PGL directors, it is not simply that they will be out of a job on March 27, but their reputations will be in tatters and they may even face legal problems. As other posters have long commented, there is more than a whiff of mal-practice surrounding the existing PGL directors. If these guys lose control of PGL, their possible wrong-doings in the past will likely come to light. Thus, I was not simply talking about directors fees in my last post. Rather, I was also inferring that these PGL directors are keen for the AVX merger to proceed, in part, because only this will preserve their reputations and keep potential litigators at a safe distance.