This specifically worded paragraph in the newsletter caught my...

This specifically worded paragraph in the newsletter caught my attention

I would also like shareholders to again note that the that the ongoing existence of the Licensing Agreement between our company and Mylan Laboratories Limited will not be impacted by the arbitration outcome and will continue to be in force. Our company therefore continues to work within, and actively protect our rights under, the Licensing Agreement.

It reads to me as if Murdoch wants to draw our attention to something he feels we might have missed.

I think that he’s saying

• 
  
• the Licensing agreement between POH and Mylan still exists.
  
• whatever the outcome of the arbitration, the contract between the two companies will still exist.
  
• as the contract will still exist, it will still be binding and enforceable.
  
• POH has continued to abide by all of its contractual obligations and thereby hasn’t jeopardized the existence or enforceability of the contract.
  

I’m guessing there’s a severability clause in the licensing contract to protect the whole contract from failing due to, say, one part of the contract being found invalid. Probably something like

“If any provision of this agreement shall be declared by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, void, or unenforceable, the other provisions shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect”.

What would this mean for us? I’m guessing (again) that POH is stating that, no matter what the finding and outcome of the arbitration, it considers that Mylan isn't off the hook with respect to the daptomycin contract and it expects Mylan to fulfil its contractual obligation to develop and globally commercialise TPM/daptomycin or otherwise come to a mutually agreeable agreement.