Sorry but you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. But at...

Sorry but you completely misunderstand what I'm saying.

But at least you understand that Teva is indeed bound by the contract. So if they wanted for commercial reasons to get out of it, they'd negotiate a variation based on commercial realities.

If MSB are not meeting efficacy targets expressly set out in the contract, then Teva can terminate and MSB is reimbursed only to that point according to the split which would have been set out in the contrct. If the IP is worthless there is nothing to split.

The problem with this argument (that tubbyguts has been making) is that MSB has met the efficacy targets sufficient for the FDA to determine that clinical trials will continue. Which means the IP is indeed worth something and must be split. Teva has equity in the CHF application. Why would it gift it to MSB? Makes no sense.

If MSB are meeting efficacy targets then Teva can't unilaterally terminate. They are bound by the contract to pay for the continuation of the CHF trials.

But [boom boom....enter commercial reality boom boom]
WHAT IF BOTH TEVA WANT OUT AND CELGENE WANT IN*?

Then they reach a financing agreement where Teva agrees to finance the continuation of the trials on an interim basis, and give back the IP to MSB.
(* Bear in mind that Celgene wanted to extend the scope of applications under consideration in their current negotiations with MSB, and this happened last year around the time of the MSB AGM.)
In exchange MSB doesn't sue them to continue them to fund the trials.

WIN/WIN outcome.

In some posters world, it's always WIN/LOSE, or LOSE/LOSE in the commercial world.

There are variations to this, you know. and the best outcomes are WIN/WIN ones.

Smart operators understand this. Some are smart but wilfully playing a different game.