TEVA as equity financer????, page-62

Thanks again for your reasoned and detailed explanations of there technical matters @madamswer. Also @aatisket and @Southoz.

It seems that the reasons for Teva's withdrawal are the major concern for investors (apart from the funding issue). Many people quite reasonably read Teva's action as them exercising their option to withdraw subject to the clause that allows them to do so if surrogate endpoints have not been met. Along the lines of: they would be able to withdraw from their agreement with MSB only if a condition or conditions had not been met, specifically, surrogate endpoints not achieved. But I would appreciate expert opinion on another scenario that would allow them to withdraw.

The ********* Commentary posted by @chillam - ("But Teva acquired Cephalon in 2011 and is now seeking approval to buy the generic drug portfolio of UK drug group Allegan for $US40 billion.
That requires Teva to sell or quit dozens of new and existing drugs or research programs. On top of this, Teva has to cut borrowings by raising money from selling these drugs or cutting spending - one of which is Mesoblast.")
- details a compelling reason for Teva to withdraw its financial support from the trial. But what say they can't because the withdrawal conditions have not been met. So they go to MSB and say please let us out. MSB then secures a funding agreement elsewhere and comes back to Teva and says OK you can go on condition all rights to the trial revert to us, free to us.

Opinions from knowledgeable contributors appreciated.