Bird,Thank you for telling us you are a reincarnated high flying...

Bird,
Thank you for telling us you are a reincarnated high flying futures and options trader. The issue of ETO and OTC is totally irrelevant to my point that an option DO NOT and cannot be argued to create a CONTRACT to buy or sell the underlying commodity. And having illustrated that BTA do not get paid even when a pandemic order/contract is signed (paid only after the Relenza is delivered) it will be clear to any 5 y.o GSK will not pay royalties for Options.

BTA shareholders should be enraged with Peter Cook and his board for this situation. Roche had been marketing Tamiflu options long before the cooked GSK settlement. Gillead had the common sense to squeeze extra royalties by suing Roche and then settling.
GSK did not sell Relenza options before the cooked settlement. It is just plain stupidity for any CEO to settle without discussing the option issue. However this level of stupidity is consistent with the stupidity and arrogance displayed by Peter Cook and the board. Peter Cook took weeks to realise the Relenza sale figures he announced to the ASX was wrong when the correct information were on the GSK website. There is just no excuse especially when Relenza royalties had been the single most important income stream for BTA.

Moreld has correctly posted that there is no need to own the underlying commodity to write options.

I also agree that BTA should be entitled to royalties from Relenza options. An average CEO would have the intelligence to negotiate the royalties into the settlement. So what can BTA shareholders to do about this sad option situation that Peter Cook should have forseen before he trumpet his great settlement deal? Reward him with more LTIOs?