The statement QUOTE “I understand quite well how Exchange Traded...

The statement QUOTE “I understand quite well how Exchange Traded Options trade” contrast starkly to the assertion that an option QUOTE Could "legally be seen as a contract to supply albeit optionally"

Putting aside issues such as considerations, legality, mistakes and the likes, at the very bare minimum there must be an offer and an acceptance before a contract comes into existence. An option in its simplest form is a contract by the option seller to make an irrevocable offer to the option buyer. The “Contract to supply” do not exist until the option buyer accepts the said offer.

It is an irrefutable fact that during the hay days of Pandemic Flu Stockpile period, GSK had more Sale and Purchase contracts to supply Relenza faster then GSK could supply. During those bygone days, Biota received royalties only after GSK had supplied the Relenza and not when the order was received. This basic principle is clearly reflected in the UK order. If Biota is entitled to royalties when a supply contract is signed, Peter Cook would be counting the royalties from the UK orders, wouldn’t he?

Peter Cook’s announcement and comments on the difficulties to predict the timing of the supply to the UK orders should allude even the thickest reader that royalties are not paid when the orders are received. It is plain fantasy to think Biota is entitled to royalties for Relenza options before the buyer exercise the options.

So when will Biota receive royalties from the Relenza options? Only after the buyers exercise the options and after GSK had supplied the Relenza. And when is that likely to occur? When a pandemic occurs! And will BTA shareholders be over the moon to see the Relenza options turning into firm orders?