(Total Views: 408)
Posted On: 11/01/2019 2:42:15 PM
Post# of 148878
The reasoning, I believe, is that the precise, unchanged words from the company since this deal was first discussed have been "licensing deal for HIV in US", not "licensing deal for combo HIV in US".
Everything is speculation with CYDY to one degree or another, given the difficult communications at times, but I believe CYDY would have shouted from the rooftops if it was getting $90M in milestones + 50% revenue + COGS+10% just for combo while retaining 100% of mono. CYDY certainly takes every other opportunity to trumpet good (if yet to happen) news to the shareholders.
The fact that CYDY never made it explicit that the licensing deal is for combo only should answer the question for you (i.e., that it is for combo and mono).
Everything is speculation with CYDY to one degree or another, given the difficult communications at times, but I believe CYDY would have shouted from the rooftops if it was getting $90M in milestones + 50% revenue + COGS+10% just for combo while retaining 100% of mono. CYDY certainly takes every other opportunity to trumpet good (if yet to happen) news to the shareholders.
The fact that CYDY never made it explicit that the licensing deal is for combo only should answer the question for you (i.e., that it is for combo and mono).
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
