@Shapeshifter this is not a good look, particularly given that (if I recall correctly) management have previously, explicitly said that the structured convertible note facility, together with the remaining cash would see them to the interim readout.

Management reiterated this position in the February update on the drawdown of the latest $5m tranche of the facility.

Given that the stable operational costs of the business, particularly those relating to the Phase 3 trial, are pretty well defined, it will be interesting to listen to the "story" of capital raising and to find out "what's changed". For example, I don't think there are another other advance trials to be progressed?

If the explanation is less than clear, then I'm worried there might be something in what your are surmising!

I hold only a small research position in $PAR, so it will be interesting to hear what management have to say. If there is a poor interim result, then there is a long way to fall from $0.225!

Something is going on, because a good interim result would see this easily go north of $1.00 - so that's potentially a lot of extra dilution for the sake of a few months.

Exactly @mikebrisy no way I’m buying into this cap raise. If they have a sniff the results are going to be poor then this is a cynical exercise in paying their salary for an extra few months. If the results are bad this company is toast. Happily I think it’s more likely they just did their sums wrong and needed more cash to get through interim. Incompetence but not a showstopper if results are good

@GazD pre-revenue pharma is a crap-shoot at the best of times. Managing the "Valley of Death" is Biotech101, so I am stunned if funding/spend have gotten so fine that management missed two opportunities last year when the SP was between $0.4 and $0.5 that they didn't build enough of a cash buffer/contingency.

It says to me that the negotiations leading to convertible note facility were finely balanced (e.g., amount vs. terms). Why settle at $41m, when perhaps $50m or $55m would have offered that extra safety cushion? From July 2025, they'd have had to have put in a 6-month delay margin of safely to the interim readout milestone. If the management and board have misjudged that, then it is a serious mark against them. IMO that would be a rookie error (but one that I realise is made often enough in the sector).

I mean, it's not as if the trial is taking longer than planned. The timing of the interim readout is expected in August, in line with what they thought in mid 2025 ("Mid CY 2026"). So that indicates to me that the recruitment has gone pretty much as planned.

Let's be clear: the alternative hypothesis - that somehow management have an early view of the interim readout - would likely be insider trading and illegal. Now, there is of course a grey area, whereby insights can be inferred. For example, high levels of trial participant abandonment, or "informal observations" gleaned from the trial centres.

Given the design of this particular trial, I'd have to say I think this is unlikely. The trial is double blinded and the end points are around perceived pain after treatment, with the treatment generally well-tolerated. I believe it is really going to come down to the statisticians working the dataset to figure out if the endpoints are achieved.

From my understanding, the governance around clinical trial integrity is pretty-well established. i.e., management have no means of getting their hands on early insights.

So, if I had to pick one of the two competing hypotheses, then I go for judging funding too finely.

The only other thing I can think of is that there is some new activity that needs to be funded, unrelated to this particular trial. Might it be some follow-on to the Pentacoxib acquisition? Of course, that's at such an early stage that the funding requirements for any work program are likely insignificant compare with the current cash burn rate of $3-$4m per month?

We'll just have to wait and see.