“Clinical trial development under way for HIV…and HIV/NASH” per company pipeline webpage. Investing resources into protocol development (this is not your “what I did on my summer vacation” essay, it requires deep, thoughtful work and time) would be a pointless exercise unless it carries intentions; with company coffers lean I can think of only 3:
1) Buggar off Big Pharma if you think you can steal our cheese on the cheap. We raise your crumbs and are all in with our Stilton, backed up by new trials.
2) “Our counsel has advised us not to comment on ongoing arbitration” but behind closed doors they have strong hints there might be a wad of cash sufficient to propel trial(s) forward, or at least convert company Friday Team Building event from the beer wagon/food truck affair to that 5 star restaurant with the basement converted into a wine cave to match the Michelin Star food.
3) Other discussions, behind closed doors and under NDA translate to partnership…target protocols are of targeted strategic interest to partner.

Before I spin our Wheel of Fortune the question I have pertains to likelihood that any movement on option 3 would be predicated on putting the Amarex debacle in the rear view mirror? Anyone with legal/contract negotiation background that can comment about the probability of this potential constraint is appreciated.

Respert’s comment that Sidley are no amateur lawyer’s but assassins comes into play here…I think they put a bullet into the BLA to act as an accelerant…and their next target has been acquired.