@madamswer was certainly correct, at least in the first point of...

@madamswer was certainly correct, at least in the first point of your dismissal. From my very first post on MSB (with emphasis just added):

'Here's some stuff I know: Teva: we should of course recall that the deal was not done with Teva but with Cephalon. This was driven hard by the CEO of that company, who "got religion" about the technology, to use the exact words of a very senior MSB exec to whom I spoke at a biotech networking function. The CEO then sadly died, probably taking a lot of the corporate enthusiasm for the project with him to the grave. The price paid was down to the fact that MSB had a bunch of European investors lined up, so could afford to indulge in some brinkmanship. so, a good deal? Absolutely. A watertight deal? Almost certainly not. Notwithstanding the price paid, I would be astonished if it proved expensive for Teva to can the project. I've cut many deals in life sciences from both sides, and penalty clauses - especially from a big player to a smaller one - are vanishingly rare. MSB will likely get the rights returned... and that's it. So I agree with an earlier poster, that Teva will undertake their contractual obligations up to the interim look and then, unless the results blow them away, they'll drop it. It's not part of their core business, and whilst any company would move away from the core given a solid gold blockbuster, they won't if the results are mediocre or inconclusive.'