calling jessie 202020 etc, page-19

Jojo

You say: "The contract they have negotiated at the time with GSK or its previous contractual partner will be binding as of today and into the future.

Biota mangement can do NOTHING but sit back and let GSK do the work regarding to Relenza.

This is not new, but has been in the public domain for a long time, I wish that the posters on this side would educate themselves better and realise the real issues here.

And that is the fact that in the very beginning BIOTA has managed to sign a lousy contract with GSK".

The above may be the case, however, do not forget that at the time of settlement the BTA management had an "window" of opportunity to vary the contract as part of their consideration received in the settlement to make the arrangement more transparent for themselves and access greater and more timely information re Relenza promotiuon and sales. Failure to market Relenza was their main beef under the legal action. Hence, one would think that in any settlement the first thing they would want would be access to information that proves that GSK is marketing the product better going forward and that would mean access to sales orders. That is what any prudent management would ask for. How do they measure whether GSK marketing efforts would improve post settlement? Or did they say give us $20 million and we will let relationships continue on as usual, i.e. You (GSK) fail to market Relenza. It just does not make sense if they did that. And very poor management and legal representation if they did.

cheers