sherlock: To quote King Henry V, I delve "once more unto the breach" in trying to frame a response that does justice to the cogent questions and observations produced by your fertile mind. My old mind is hard pressed to stay sufficiently agile and focused, but here are a few scattered thoughts and observations.
I think it reasonable to surmise that perhaps the key element in any serious BO or partnership negotiations would be to reasonably estimate the present value of the future revenues that an FDA approved LL would generate during its patent life. Based on what LL will have reasonably demonstrated to that point, and ohm's list of future revenue sources, this will be an enormous analytical challenge, fraught with the likelihood of honest disagreement, that may well separate the serious bidders (true believers) from the bargain hunters. But even for the true believers, I strongly agree with you that BO or partnership offers are likely to include contingent future payments to CYDY shareholders based on revenue milestones reached as a key element. The potential LL revenues are so enormous, but uncertain, that contingent future payments seem like the obvious way to mitigate future revenue risk for both sides.
You and many others also favor selling or partnering LL one indication at a time. That sounds wonderful to me if it is actually practical. I have no doubt that hot shot transactional lawyers can draft contract language to accomplish that result that would make a law professor smile. But I have no idea, given the accounting and off label prescription issues that would be entailed, as well as the incentive for outright cheating among the various licensees, whether such a blueprint is practical or workable. So I would absolutely defer to CYDYs judgment as to whether that dog would hunt..
My previous comment regarding my experiences in settlement negotiations that "the skillful use of Leverage by all sides often ultimately produced a reasonable facsimile" of fair value, was simply an acknowledgment that even though the relative quality of Leverage cards is almost always paramount in driving the ultimate outcome of negotiations, the skill level of the respective negotiators in playing those cards will usually also impact the final results. Moreover, I wouldn't assume that Jay, Hoffman, and their BP counterparts will be doing the talking during negotiations. It's possible, but probably more likely that as negotiations progress, a senior partner from Sidley Austin will be our chief negotiator vs counterparts from other big law firms representing BPs.
More to the point, we will never have a glimpse of how any BP negotiations actually play out, nor will we know all, or even most, of the cards in play, let alone how well or poorly the respective negotiators played them. We will simply be give the final results for our consideration, and our visceral reaction will be either positive or negative depending on our individual circumstances and expectations (whether reasonable or not). While many of us enjoy second guessing the play calls, strategies, and decisions of the coaching staff of our favorite football team during a game. -- even though most of never played or coached football and none of us have any idea of how or why the game plan was constructed as it was -- we do get to watch from our couch or stadium seat how everything played out in producing the final score. But imagine not being able to watch the game, and seeing only the final score. You're either happy or disgusted with the final score, but you have no idea how that score came about. There would be infinite ways it could have happened. That's how I see the negotiations that will produce final terms of a BO or partnership. I'll be happy or maybe disgusted, but I'll have no idea how well or poorly our negotiators performed against the other side, given the leverage cards they had available. Consequently, I think it will continue to be fun to speculate on which BPs are likely to be true believers and possible ORRs in the CRC trial, while we wait on data and info. But, any speculation on final dollars or terms of a deal seems pretty pointless to me because the amount of not knowing how much we don't know is so enormous.
All of which brings me back to Dr Jay. As a long time shareholder and LL believer, I am very likely going to place my full trust in Dr Jay to do his absolute best to Leverage the best possible combination of results for CYDY shareholders and LL patients( remembering that the opposing side will also be trying to use its leverage cards to generate maximum economic value for its shareholders). A SA lawyer may be doing the talking , but he/she will be following the marching orders of the CYDY BOD and, though Jay is not a member, I suspect and hope that he is its guiding light for driving the best possible results, all things considered.
Yikes, way too long again, but hope some of it was of use. Please. No more questions or invitations to comment. My old brain and typing fingers need a good rest.
I think it reasonable to surmise that perhaps the key element in any serious BO or partnership negotiations would be to reasonably estimate the present value of the future revenues that an FDA approved LL would generate during its patent life. Based on what LL will have reasonably demonstrated to that point, and ohm's list of future revenue sources, this will be an enormous analytical challenge, fraught with the likelihood of honest disagreement, that may well separate the serious bidders (true believers) from the bargain hunters. But even for the true believers, I strongly agree with you that BO or partnership offers are likely to include contingent future payments to CYDY shareholders based on revenue milestones reached as a key element. The potential LL revenues are so enormous, but uncertain, that contingent future payments seem like the obvious way to mitigate future revenue risk for both sides.
You and many others also favor selling or partnering LL one indication at a time. That sounds wonderful to me if it is actually practical. I have no doubt that hot shot transactional lawyers can draft contract language to accomplish that result that would make a law professor smile. But I have no idea, given the accounting and off label prescription issues that would be entailed, as well as the incentive for outright cheating among the various licensees, whether such a blueprint is practical or workable. So I would absolutely defer to CYDYs judgment as to whether that dog would hunt..
My previous comment regarding my experiences in settlement negotiations that "the skillful use of Leverage by all sides often ultimately produced a reasonable facsimile" of fair value, was simply an acknowledgment that even though the relative quality of Leverage cards is almost always paramount in driving the ultimate outcome of negotiations, the skill level of the respective negotiators in playing those cards will usually also impact the final results. Moreover, I wouldn't assume that Jay, Hoffman, and their BP counterparts will be doing the talking during negotiations. It's possible, but probably more likely that as negotiations progress, a senior partner from Sidley Austin will be our chief negotiator vs counterparts from other big law firms representing BPs.
More to the point, we will never have a glimpse of how any BP negotiations actually play out, nor will we know all, or even most, of the cards in play, let alone how well or poorly the respective negotiators played them. We will simply be give the final results for our consideration, and our visceral reaction will be either positive or negative depending on our individual circumstances and expectations (whether reasonable or not). While many of us enjoy second guessing the play calls, strategies, and decisions of the coaching staff of our favorite football team during a game. -- even though most of never played or coached football and none of us have any idea of how or why the game plan was constructed as it was -- we do get to watch from our couch or stadium seat how everything played out in producing the final score. But imagine not being able to watch the game, and seeing only the final score. You're either happy or disgusted with the final score, but you have no idea how that score came about. There would be infinite ways it could have happened. That's how I see the negotiations that will produce final terms of a BO or partnership. I'll be happy or maybe disgusted, but I'll have no idea how well or poorly our negotiators performed against the other side, given the leverage cards they had available. Consequently, I think it will continue to be fun to speculate on which BPs are likely to be true believers and possible ORRs in the CRC trial, while we wait on data and info. But, any speculation on final dollars or terms of a deal seems pretty pointless to me because the amount of not knowing how much we don't know is so enormous.
All of which brings me back to Dr Jay. As a long time shareholder and LL believer, I am very likely going to place my full trust in Dr Jay to do his absolute best to Leverage the best possible combination of results for CYDY shareholders and LL patients( remembering that the opposing side will also be trying to use its leverage cards to generate maximum economic value for its shareholders). A SA lawyer may be doing the talking , but he/she will be following the marching orders of the CYDY BOD and, though Jay is not a member, I suspect and hope that he is its guiding light for driving the best possible results, all things considered.
Yikes, way too long again, but hope some of it was of use. Please. No more questions or invitations to comment. My old brain and typing fingers need a good rest.
19
