Ron - Yeah, "term of art" is legalese. Some of us use it as shorthand for, "Is thishere word pregnant, or is it just being used in its ordinary manner?" If it's the former, it's a signal to do lots of reading about the word before we speak out loud. If it's the latter (which I personally think it is in AQLA's case), the risks of speaking are grossly reduced. Some of us are so obtuse and cynical, we sometimes need help in figuring out which.
As I said, I was surprised by the announcement because I don't think less than formal "inquiries" usually get reported right away via press release. Usually, I think, a "Current Report" gets filed with the SEC before press releases are issued. Regardless, I'm pleased that management chose to tell us instead of making us dig through SEC filings to find it, presuming it merits "Current Report" treatment.
On the substance of your comment, I think your analysis holds up pretty well. Several posts back, I noted the cashflow question and, following the Quilvax-M announcement, roughly walked through cash-on-hand spread over "X" months until some of the other trials are scheduled to be completed. I concluded they could manage but that additional cash would make things easier. I also wonder whether direct ownership of AQLA's R&D has the same tax benefits of an equity ownership in AQLA as a separate concern. Not being a tax lawyer, I don't know but recall hearing that, while in-house R&D must be expensed, a capital investment retains its character as a capital investment. Of course, as you pointed out, AQLA is so small relative to its partners that such a consideration, even if true, would make no difference here.
Thanks and regards,
Harry J. |
