TJW,GSK started marketing these schemes immediately after the...

TJW,
GSK started marketing these schemes immediately after the cooked settlement. If you analyse the 2 schemes carefully, you will find a fundamental difference between the two schemes. One is a sale & purchase (S&P) contract and one is reserving the rights to a future S&P contract.

This one “Quote: purchase Relenza now at a discounted rate with free storage” is definitely a S&P contract where BTA is entitled to royalties.
However there still remain the details of when the royalties is due to BTA. When a government signed and placed a sale and purchase contract to GSK, BTA only receives the royalties after the Relenza was delivered. We do not have the details of GSK/BTA agreement to determine whether this is because the GSK/BTA agreement is structured to trigger royalties upon delivery of the Relenza or because presumedly that is when GSK receives payment and in turn triggers the obligation to pay BTA.
As you may be aware, licensing agreements are legal document that determines precisely when the obligation to pay royalties is triggered. IF the term is royalty is payable upon receipt of payment from the buyer, then BTA is “safe”. If the royalty is payable upon delivery, then BTA is truly stuffed.


The second method “Quote: to reserve quantities of Relenza for future purchase at a capped rate with a nominal annual fee” is not a sale and purchase contract. This is an option. The “nominal annual fee” is the option fee for “future purchase at a capped rate”. And the option expires annually and has to be renewed by the buyer paying another annual fee.

The S&P contract comes into existence only when the buyer "commits" to pay GSK the “capped rate”.
Once the buyer "commits" the buyer can no longer back out of the S&P.