A poster from YMB looked into “CYDY license rela

A poster from YMB looked into “CYDY license related questions and how previous license agreements can affect CYDY's EPS and for that matter benefit other companies. I am enclosing a document which I previously shared. I am not certain whether AbbVie (think of blockbuster Humira) gets 3.5% or 4.5% on net sales. The master license agreement states 4.5% while CYDY's filings states 3.5%.

CytoDyn faces the possibility of generating Billions in revenues if all the planets align perfectly. Regardless of the exact amount, Lantheus Holdings (after the merge with Progenics) will receive 5% of PRO140 (Leronlimab) net sales. AbbVie will receive an additional 3.5%-4.5%. Thus, any calculation about future share values for the next 10 years should take these royalty payments into consideration. Clearly, the BIG winner is LNTH. Specifically, LNTH will receive another $50 million for each $1.0 Billion of net sales. LNTH revenues are small viv a vis AbbVie. This initial $55 million represents for LNTH a diluted EPS increase of 55-66 cents based on the royalty payments ESP assumptions found on page 20 of LNTH's 11/19/19 pre-merger presentation. A future LNTH share +4X price increase to at least $62 is easily attainable and probably significantly higher. My calculations are based on LNTH's own management royalty payments ESP assumptions which I found on page 20 of the following 11/19 presentation. https://lantheusprogenics.transactionannounce...7.19_..pdf .
It is a fascinating story behind how AbbVie eventually became the Master licensor of PRO140. It goes more or less as follows. PRO140 ( Leronlemab’ IP foundation) was developed and licensed by Protein Design Labs for Progenics in1999 (Progenics later sublicensed it to CytoDyn in 2012). The license calls for a 5% royalty fee (plus certain payments) on the Net Sales of all Licensed Products sold by Progenics or its Affiliates or sublicensees.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1175680/000119312513351909/d541269dex1021.htm

Protein Design Labs eventually became Bio Pharma (PDL) and in 2008 it created and funded an independent company called Facet Biotech which kept the PRO140 license. Facet Biotech’s 2009 10K described its license relationship with Progenics as follows:“”Progenics Pharmaceuticals Inc.—In 1999, we entered into a humanization agreement with Progenics whereby we humanized an antibody targeted to the CCR5 receptor (designated by Progenics as PRO 140)”.
To avoid a hostile takeover, Facet Biotech in 2010 sought out a White Knight. Thus, Abbott Laboratories acquired the company for $27 per share. Late 2011, Abbott announced plans to split into two companies—one in diversified medical products (Abbott) and a new one (AbbVie) in research-based pharmaceuticals. The license for PRO140 stayed with AbbVie giving the company a priviliged permanent insight into CytoDyn's future market success.
Since 2012, AbbVie has nearly doubled revenues, growing from $18.8 billion following the spin-off to $33.3 billion in 2019 with Humira representing over 50% of revenues. AbbVie needs diversification with license deals such as the one you mentioned and the recent Allergan mega deal. At the time I did my due diligence concerning CYDY's PRO140 sub license, AbbVie had a $40 billion cash kitty. CytoDyn could be a potential acquisition or license candidate because the PRO140 IP could be used in a number of profitable therapeutic spaces which overlap with AbbVie's strategic priorities.
As Progenics was developing this molecule for years before Cytodyn licensed it and Cytodyn has been slow in their development, the initial (not all) patents are going to be gone not to far in the future. The key dates to consider: a.) Progenics/Abbvie licenses are 10 years from BLA approval date and b.) FDA's BLA license that gives Cytodyn exclusivity for 12 years from the date of approval. Those are the key calendar items for licenses. Patents are less of an issue in biologics.”