Exactly, deals are done with a series of contracts, but also, the lease is for a discrete and relatively small part of the factory. And the development costs were for the whole factory, but the lease is just for that some practical initial parts, for the specials related manufacturing, only 2 suites and then a space for other activities including the Flaskworks related validation.
So this small part yes, can be an allocation for now, subject to an overarching agreement of which this can also be a constituent. It doesn’t even need to reference that document but that document can govern the relationship overall and in relation thereto. Since we do not have the details and there are a million ways to do this, and because there are likely other details and this is a very small portion of the entire factory, which we hope will be ultimately filled with Flaskworks machines not clean suites, ExW conclusions seem to draw only the picture he wants to see and that he wants to draw.
I can draw how this could easily fit into a more flexible structure that even contemplated acquisition of NWBO as a possible end, with sale of this space to Advent should that come to pass, or in any other contingent circumstance.
Some people can only see what they want to see. I can see the viewpoint of ExW, but I’ve done too many deals where disconnected documents if seen on their own would not possibly hint at the complexity of a full picture that a deal would reveal if one had all the documents. Someone is jumping to premature, unlikely and false conclusions because it suits them. The lease, by its terms is just a small portion, and fits what the two parties have always said, not the disjointed story that ExW wants to tell in lieu of the consistent story.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
