To me it seems like NRX is solely relying on their allegation that Relief abandoned funding. The only two points in the CA, that point to this are:
"Relief agrees that it shall fund the costs associated with the clinical development of the inhaled Product in the United States in reliance upon NeuroRx’s agreement to conduct, manage, supervise and oversee said clinical development. Should Relief not fund the clinical development costs, NeuroRx shall have the freedom to bring a replacement investor."
Which only relates to the inhaled product.
"“Product” means aviptadil (also known as RLF-100 or a drug name mutually agreed upon by the Parties and approved by the FDA) for any route of administration, including intravenous and inhaled use, as long as Relief funds the research and development costs for developing such use. Relief may use a different brand name in the Relief Territory (as defined below)."
The following point in the CA leads to the question, if the exceeding of 30% was already reached when Relief stopped the payments.
"That being said, any amended budget shall be subject to prior approval by Relief and NeuroRx and shall provide for reasonable cost overruns based on changes in the regulatory environment and requirements. Budget overages of less than 30% shall be automatically approved. In the event that Relief does not approve additional overages, NeuroRx shall be free to bring in other Persons in order to complete the Project."
In the complaint of the lawsuit in points 91 and following Relief states that it requested detailed information about the additional cost. Reasonable but contradictory to "Budget overages of less than 30% shall be automatically approved." But only, and only if they were within the 30%.
In point 97 of the complaint they mention the actual amount, NRX demanded:
"and then [Javitt]
threatened to bring in outside investors unless Relief's board pre-approved an even larger sum –
an incredible $18.75 million in expenditures (still without any detailed budget) within 24 hours."
This to me seems to be far more than 30% and in absence of detailed budget proposal the actual breach of the CA in this regard.
I am not a lawyer but with common sense you can only see a misconduct on one side. And I strongly believe that Relief has documented proof of the above mentioned request.
Dear Mr. Javitt,
if you read this please look inside yourself and ask the question if you prefer additional money - of which you have more than enough - or if you want to "bring hope to life". Because at the moment countless people lose their hope in humanity, holding the hands of their dying loved ones or standing at their graves. Every single day you delay this project.
Thank you!
~ Mr Dip Fisher, Y@h00 RLFTF finance conversations
