that’s a good point about the interim injunction possibility that would affect the short term.
You would have hoped that key terms are defined but potentially in this instance, it may not have been. Unfortunately having worked with legal agreements, where there is a power imbalance, the smaller player may need to give in to (and get internal sign off) on less favourable terms in the contract. ZB may have a standard licence agreement they go by and that’s potentially where the negotiation starts. NXS being the smaller player and wanting someone with such scale and stature to distribute for them would have less ability to negotiate/change those terms and probably only allowed to include “show stopppers.”
On the issue of whether surgical lavage products may or may not be defined (ZB might have picked up that it wasn’t - in which case it may be for a court to decide what that term commonly means). I think sometimes this is a result of the competence or otherwise of the internal / external lawyers involved and simple things do get missed especially as these things can be time sensitive - but that could become costly. Just ask the insurance industry and the test cases they are bringing (as we speak today) to not pay business interruption insurance claim - where internal lawyers missed simple yet critical references or wordings, and where wordings were not water tight enough. i’ve worked on an agreement where I picked up something the top lawyers didn’t pick up after multiple years the agreement was renewed - one a company was supposed to be providing a guarantee as a guarantor in the agreement, but that company was never listed or signed the agreement to provide the guarantee (fortunately there was no default yet).
It will be interesting to see where this ends up but there might be some short term downward SP pressure without some positive news forthcoming.
(20min delay)