http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?displ...

http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00873214

Peter Cook in trying to justified his idiotic cooked settlement said this:
Quote: The claimed losses you mentioned have caused considerable confusion. They were a damages claim……….and most closely resemble a whole-of-life valuation. ………. They were an estimate of the royalty stream from Relenza from the date of launch to the date of termination of the last patent.
There are a number of reasons for the settlement amount would never even closely approach those numbers, including that the Relenza patent still has 6 years before expiry .”

http://www.biota.com.au/uploaded/154/1021515_78abnamromorgansbta90508-.pdf
This ABNAMRO report was dated 8 May 2009: Quote:
Patents in the larger markets (UK, France, Germany and US) expire from 2014.
We note that in Japan the patent for treatment has been extended to 2016.


Scenario 1:
IF the Japanese patent extension to 2016 was approved after Peter Cook’s idiotic statement to the ASX in 2008 then Peter Cook had failed his duty to announce this important information to the ASX

Scenario 2:
IF the Japanese patent extension to 2016 was approved prior to Peter Cook’s idiotic statement to the ASX in 2008 then Peter Cook had failed his duty to announce this important information to the ASX;
and worst still,
Peter Cook intentionally misled shareholders when stating and implying the “ the date of termination of the last patent has 6 years before expiry.”

Scenario 3:
Moreld,
Perhaps I am harsh to Peter Cook in using the word “intentionally”. As a proven idiot, it is possible Peter Cook could not understand his duty to tell the truth, or could not understand the importance of the patent extension.