It is certainly not time to argue about little things when an entire project is on the brink. I can understand that NeuroRx is demanding an equal partnership and not just wants to be a contractor after all what NeuroRx has done to be sucessfull, while Relief could only watch over that. However, NeuroRx is also on very smooth ice, if they think to be right in this case.
Topics of the ongoing disputes include that, according to Relief, NeuroRx is refusing to share data from its recently completed Phase IIb/III clinical trial with Relief. These data must be made available to Relief in accordance with the provisions of the cooperation agreement.
In addition, NeuroRx has denied its contractors dealing with Aviptadil development issues to provide Relief with information that Relief needs for the development of its Aviptadil product in its sales territories (including the EU and the UK). As a result, Relief has reportedly believed that NeuroRx has defaulted on its obligations under the Collaboration Agreement and that NeuroRx's failure to develop and implement a clinical and regulatory strategy for its territories will severely affect Relief's ability to develop and implement a clinical and regulatory strategy for its territories.
NeuroRx also claims that Relief owes approximately $ 4 million in unpaid bills. "Unfortunately, many of these alleged expenses were not backed up by valid, verifiable invoices", Relief commented in a press release. There is also disagreement between the parties, whether expenses that exceed the budget set in the cooperation agreement are reimbursable.
IMO, both should consider what they will lose if they don't come to a setlement in no time.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
