Money Week 22/9/16, page-9

If you stand back and look at the end result which is Teva handing back the IP in return for no longer being committed to further funding and for no consideration, essentially losing the millions they have so far contributed, it certainly comes across as a "loss cutting exercise".

When they made that decision we don't know. Somebody suggested the interim results might have simply provided a convenient way out. That's possible. It would make no logical sense for Mesoblast to have "allowed" Teva to renege on contractual funding obligations because SI is a such a "nice guy". It was a business contract which potentially affects the survival of MSB. In business no-one is going to do that.

Sure people can argue Teva "needed the funds for something else", but companies should always commit funds to the projects most likely to make a decent return. In this case, Mesoblast didn't seem like the wisest place for Teva to invest so they have effectively written it off.

I'm not trying to down ramp or antagonise anyone. I'm simply trying to interpret the facts from an objective point of view which is looking at the behaviour and the facts and the outcome, rather than concerning myself with "who said what and when" or trying to second guess "what so and so was thinking".