MGK: In negotiating any deal (settlement), success or failure from either side's perspective will turn mainly on the leverage available to each side, and the skill with which each side's negotiator employs that leverage. In this situation leverage is a function of perceived commercial value and/or opportunities.

Here, as MLAB suggests, the only positive leverage point for CYDY is LL. But if CYDY can convincingly, through data, sell the proposition that LL realistically has the potential to become a platform drug for very high revenue indications, Sidley should be able to negotiate partnership terms far more favorable than in the typical BP/underfunded biotech deal involving a run of the mill clinical phase drug with limited potential. And if a 2nd bidder were to become involved, its presence would very likely strengthen Sidley's leverage. Think free agent QB (platform drug) with multiple teams bidding.

My faith in the power of the platform drug leverage point comes from 2 sources: ohm; and the relatively meager efficacy data that CYDY has released from past trials. But CYDY has been harvesting more data from those trials over the last couple of years. With the benefit of that additional data, how close is CYDY to having the leverage to sell the platform drug proposition in a partnership negotiation with Bayer, Merck, etc, or, is more data needed from whatever source to gain that leverage?

Thanks to you and ohm for the excellent posts today regarding the potential for partnerships in CRC with Bayer or Merck.