the silence has broken , page-8

Its paper thin. How many people in the oganisation would be affected in their day to day role by any threats of litigation, especially if they are false.

If it resulted in audits then that does slow things down facility wide. But they were back in March or something when it first surfaced.

So perhaps customers who were about to sign the paper would be alarmed?

But hang on they have been in discussions with the company for how long? Have the results of their own due diligence audits etc. Large companies will have been through the ringer a number of times with product recalls, law suits, etc. If the relationship is truly a long term one then I see this being nothing more then a "let us look behind your desk" conversation and correspondence and move forward.

After all EVERY pharma looking to use a Unilife product will want to keep the procurement process well off the critical path. If they are happy with their own audit findings then toothless class actions would not let a pharma jeorpadise revenue by being late to market.

I suspect at best they would put a few extra clauses in the agreement to cover them, and perhaps have rights to increased damages if Unilife had hiccups arising from litigation.

6-8 weeks delay to me says that the litigation is a bigger road block then he is telling us if it takes customers with a schedule 8 weeks to satisfy themselves that the litigation is frivolous