Extreme Chronic Undervalue, page-107

Such a clause if it exists may or may not be binding. We do know they have free carry of the drug and a right to royalties. I wouldn't rely on boilerplate terms in a contract to determine a decision to buy the drug. They will consider the forward cash flow much like Edison but with a deeper understanding of the market. This drug buys you a few months how long till something better comes along is the question.

The other thing to consider is that the drug is performing as expected much like in the first trial. Genetech knew how it was performing when they sold it as did Hopper. There are no surpises here or positive black swan. If you were to be in the room with the falling out with Hopper I imagine that he wouldn't have wanted to spend more developing the drug than absolute minimum to maximise any profit. That's just business. These turkeys wanted to give higher does sure to maybe increase effectiveness but at a high dollar cost. Now I think they are beyond a profit that anyone would pay cause in spite of the increase to costs the results are similar they have spent too much to recoup so they enlist Bell to just keep them afloat till they can't no more playing the rinse and repeat. So whilst they may sell the drug there will be no profit. I hope you understand my point.

Sure extra indications may boost the forward cash flow but costs of development are also much higher. As JG disclosed the price paid is usually 10X costs of development and they want top dollar. They may as well say we can't sell it. Cause at 10X... well I know you can do the math.

Good luck.