University of Birmingham Lawsuit, page-44

Just to clarify, my opinion is based on more than unfounded speculation and if incorrect I'm happy to discuss.

This issue would already have been covered by IXC (Exec, BOD & Insurers)/ investors and the University. Parties would have been obliged to obtain specific legal or risk management advice concerning this specific matter under a few different instances (lender policies, investor disclosure (initial investors that is), government grants (for University), ASX listing rules etc). Large institutions do these checks as basic risk management that is either mandated by the legislation that created them (University), the government funding that keeps them open (anyone who has dealt with grant applications from the Gov would know this well) or the insurers that cover them should they stuff up (against public liability and Professional indemnity insurance is mandatory for public institutions - The university).

There is no claim, there is nothing at all that has been lodged with the courts/ regulator... just the media, who published a letter... sent over a year ago, upon which no further action has been taken. Again, facts...not even a please explain from the regulator for failing to disclose... nothing. And from this you have concluded:

- "IXC will have no claim over the product". Wrong in law, equity and in the world we live in. The product doesn't exist, only research findings, which IXC do have rights over because IXC created it.

- "there is a path to denying them any or all revenues and acquisition rights". Wrong. They own the research they have done, FDA determines ability to go to market, Exelgen claim is against the University. If Injunction against IXC is granted they are indemnified by University. Exelgen have zero rights to any of IXC's work.

- "A massive new risk has entered this play no matter how you try and look at it and convince yourself". Wrong, no auditor would consider this situation as a risk, as no claim has been made. Pure speculation this is a legitimate claim (which you will no doubt conveniently disregard as something only the echo chamber would see as valid).

I am unsure how you could logically even come to those conclusions. But then again, I'm probably deafened by this blasted echo chamber.

IMO/ DYOR