They want Enos..
B/c they they specifically requested - as a provision of the development agreement(s) a guest observer during BOD meetings. Sure for a development agreement? Highly unusual, and again Lawyers are told what to do. They don't get creative in these type of partnerships. They prevent further risk by including specific language that sets the boundaries of the scope and performance for the entities.
The only reason there was a LOAN with the earliest time possible to pay it back, at the conclusion of the 4th milestone (as part a separate development agreement)? That's only there to buy MDT time. TMDI doesn't need that provision for ANY reason. It's MDT's benefit to have it included.
Is the only reason there is a provision for a guest seat at the BOD meetings is to hear of new developments about the company? It's just a guess, but it's very unusual to create a guest seat during these meetings except to keep a hand on the pulse. IMO it would be a precursor to a right of first refusal clause. Don't need a right of first refusal unless something may happen - and MDT doesn't want that "something" to happen without their knowledge. And a BIGGER question would be: "What's the benefit to TMDI to have an MDT guest attend these meetings?" It's a what's-in-it-for-me type of "tell." That provision could have easily been redacted, but it wasn't so we would be aware. Connect the dots.
And there had to be a provision to excuse the guest (that's the tell) so there was no compromise of attorney-client privilege. Also, b/c MDT does not have any right to know more than what exists in the development agreements, so there is a clause to excuse the guest for private conversations that may be considered competitive in nature. You don't have to know the specific content of "that" meeting to know it's privileged details that include a competitor. MDT only "needs" to know that the conversation took place. They don't need to be present - they're being TOLD b/c they're being excused.
Throughout the course of these agreements, it's the form and content that shows the true nature of their purpose. Redactions are obvious red flags, but the other content is just as informative.
It's not the fact that MDT doesn't have any ownership of TMDI per se, it's the fact that these other conditions and provisions exist
that leads me to conclude that they are interested in ENOS. Otherwise why create them at all? Lawyers are told what to do....
Good luck to all. Regards,BK.
