OTAT Meeting, page-28

Good question!

In Teva's case, the terms were known (and in fact had been watered down from the original). MSB has stated that the termination was in accordance with the agreement which only basically allowed for termination for lack of efficacy or slow recruitment (this info is publicly available from the US SEC website). So Teva did not like the tech - indeed it is interesting that they specifically amended the agreement to include this termination provision which was not in the original agreement.

Mallinckrodt and Celgene were both agreements to agree - so could be either. Nevertheless, even if it was because they did not like the terms that says MSB's expectations are set too high, the technology is not worth what they think it is.

Novartis was pre-agreed - so like Teva they did not like the tech.