Ladies and Gentlemen, … I have been here for quite a long time - far beyond a year. I own stock in both companies and will continue to hold.
I have been Litigation Attorney for 30 years, State and Federal.
I have read the Civil Complaint, and have seen/read statements “attributed” to JJ and also spoken by JJ. I have observed actions of both companies through the development process.
The Collaboration Agreement (C.A.) is quite an interesting agreement. A Non-Disclosure Agreement (N.D.A.) between the parties and signed September 9, 2020, is incorporated by reference to the terms of the C.A., as is a written Development Plan, (D.P.) “mutually agreed by the parties.”
These will prove to be most interesting to the parties INTENT. In a Contract dispute, INTENT of the parties, is what a Court will seek to answer. The C.A., is a piece of evidence toward understanding that.
And, because of the current posture of the E.U.A., coupled with the need to protect the investors of both companies, Declaratory Relief will, …. or should, be sought immediately. Parties can be enjoined from performing certain activity, or activity can be ordered to occur. The investors in a public company will be heavy consideration factored in by the Court.
Interestingly, the C.A., does not define what actions would constitute a “breach” or “material breach” by either party. A material breach “might” allow JJ to assert what he has, i.e., “they failed to pay, so I did XYZ.” However, equitable claims exist, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment by Relief. Further, it is Relief’s IP.
Now, looking at the Exclusivity Paragraphs 5.1-5.4 of the C.A., is defining. The C.A. was for the development of a COVID-19 “product,” or ailments “reasonably related.” And, it delegated responsibilities accordingly. Paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4, define the parties conduct for non-COVID-19 treatments, should either seek to develop them. Obviously, the Trials we have been watching are COVID-19 related.
So, the good news, expect Declaratory motion practice very early in the litigation, and I would say immediately so to preserve, protect and pronounce the parties actions while litigation is occurring. I wouldn’t discount, at any time, that the parties reach agreement. It certainly is in their interest. Legal fees are expensive particularly for budding companies.
Asking me my opinion as to who did what? As an astute poster stated: “we don’t know the facts.”
But, we are here and our interests need to be protected.
Safety and efficacy of the science appears beyond where we are now. Now, it is checking the boxes of manufacturing, distribution and getting past the FDA’s need to pump vaccines, and not allow people to believe that “another method of treating CVD19” exists. That is my opinion.
Long and strong
~ Bogo, Y@h00 RLFTF finance conversations
Replies ——————————————
I say : You made my day ! How wonderful it is to have on- hands experts on this Board !
I figure the Judge in New York won’t allow NRx to destroy Relief whilst the litigation is going on…meaning the $ flow will have to be shared once the Fat Drug Administration sings its tune…
~ John, Y@h00 RLFTF finance conversations
————>
@John Correct
~ Bogo, Y@h00 RLFTF finance conversations
