Kag, you certainly raise some interesting points here.
Re your first one, I don't believe the prevailing share price would/should hinder an outright sale if that is what both parties agreed to pursue, for two reasons : (a) a BOCX announcement that such talks were being held (I believe it is mandatory to inform the market in such event) would put paid to that in a flash!!; and (b) even without such announcement, the exercise would be one of valuing Biocurex on its patents' future market worth and arriving at a valuation accordingly,irrespective of prevailing price in the market. That the market is assigning a totally incorrect valuation to BOCX is an extraneous matter in my opinion and I don't believe there is any market rule that says a company can't be taken out for 10/20 times its current market price. If Abbott wanted the company they're obviously not going to offend/insult Biocurex by offering some cheap take-out price -they won't pussy-foot around, they'd have done the numbers and it'd be way too valuable for them to risk losing out.
As to your second point that the royalty route is much more likely, whilst not necessarily disagreeing over this likelihood, is it not just as feasible that Abbott might consider it more advantageous to them to pay a (big for Biocurex,not so large in Abbott's eyes)one-time price now to own the patents outright than to pay out an increasingly fatter check for several years that would cost them much more over time (especially if they can see numerous areas to exploit the patents over)?
Incidentally, does anyone know the length of time of the granted patents and those being filed??
Very interesting insight re the Pliva story btw, makes one drool in anticipation of what could be expected here!
Looking forward to your further considered comments,
merovingian
