JJ likely to counter claim for libel, slander, defamation of character. But if he does, he has to prove the allegations against him are false. The court likely to mandate arbitration per clause in the agreement. If both parties want to bring Aviptadil to those who need it they will figure out a way to resolve differences. Nevertheless hard to believe JJ will have the same role given the loss of trust. Lesser role has to be part of any deal. JJ needs to acknowledge that Zyesami is not a separately owned proprietary product though it’s formulation may be, and it is another version of RLF-100 with greater shelf life. So much more can be accomplished if we had a team again. Imagine they both realize what’s at stake if it isn’t resolved quickly. The people they are trying to help with Aviptadil lose and so do they. We all lose. It’s a lose, lose, lose. They have to know this. To salvage it concessions must be made, apologies must be given, and the collaboration restored with the focus on getting Aviptadil to those who need it. Then it’s a win, win, win. So they have two options, and one really isn’t a viable one. It’s got to fix or everyone loses. Someone suggested GEM take action. Hopefully behind the scenes they already have.
~ Mathieu, Y@h00 RLFTF finance conversations
————————————————->
@Mathieu
I do not know if you have read the full lawsuit but if you have not you should.
It is 18 months that Relief have gone through s*** and tried to keep the collaboration running. It is a year since an EUA was sabotaged, and they still tried to keep the collaboration running. I could go on. The worst, and probably the last straw, was that CEO update last week where Dr J was talking about developing other paths for Aviptadil as if it was an NRx product. And it's even worse : NRx even got a loan from Relief because they had liquidity problems, and they still did everything they did (this would be a major negative in a trial by jury for NRx).
"collaboration restored", as you mention it, is unrealistic at this point, in my mind. When Relief says in their lawsuit "we are still aiming to resolve amicably" (or something similar), I would not be fooled into thinking it means back to the collaboration agreement, because they have seen NeuroRx/NRx take no notice of it for more than 18 months, the reading between the lines is that "amicably" means there will be a new collaboration agreement which will include a number of additional constraints on NRx, agreement that everything belongs to Relief, very probably the removal of Dr J as CEO, and more.
Like everyone else I have absolutely no idea of how it will play out, but one thing I do know is what I mentioned yesterday, there are no positives for NRx in allowing it to go trial, particularly a jury trial, which in my mind means that "amicably" effectively means "according to our NEW terms and conditions" !
IlkaS, Y@h00 RLFTF finance conversations
