tamiflu resistance sparks relenza order, page-10

Quote: “hi prohet4me, You are totally right Biota has nothing and can nothing say regarding Relenza. They have signed over the rights for Relenza and hereby have no more control over this product.
A lot of posters here do not seem to understand the contractual agreement between Biota and GSK but to be putting it all in a nutshell, Biota has given now the rights about Relenza to GSK.
THIS INCLUDES EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH RELENZA INCLUDING PROMOTIONS COMMENTS ECT. If you want to get onto someone about Relenza it will be GSK.” End of Quotes
And
Quote: “YOU HAVE TO REALISE THAT BIOTA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELENZA ANYMORE THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR RIGHTS TO GSK.
Biota can only make an ASX announcement once GSK has confirmed that an order has been received.
The only thing Biota has to do is to bank the royalty payments.” End of Quote

BTA published this on 21/02/07 – Open Briefing BTA CEO on Half Year Profit http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00695198

Quoting page 1:
CEO Peter Cook: We’re assuming our Relenza royalties in the 2nd half will be similar to the first half. That’s based on the only concrete advice GSK has given its shareholders, which is that it would increase annual Relenza production capacity to 15 million courses. Our analysis of reported sales for the Dec quarter implies GSK’s Relenza production is tracking at about that rate,
There have been unconfirmed reports that GSK may double or treble capacity in calendar 2007, and although we have no knowledge of the potential timing, we know GSK’s North Carolina facility has been commissioned.
On the marketing front, there has been very encouraging indications for Relenza in the market. ………” End of Quote

BTA did NOT sell their RIGHTS on Relenza to GSK. Under the licensing agreement BTA would have given GSK an exclusive right to manufacture and sell Relenza in the territories defined in the agreement. It is not the same as selling rights to Relenza.

Peter Cook told shareholders his idiotic settlement had normalised relationship with GSK. If during the law suit, BTA can make announcements assuming royalties, speculating on production capacity and implying the progress of Relenza sales, it is outrageous to suggest that in a normalised relationship, BTA is gaged from making statements and restricted only to collecting royalties payment. I let readers make their judgment call why some keep postings such ridiculous statemenets.