Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (3912)	8/7/2001 2:50:47 PM
From: Hank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

I have no idea. Even if there is a clause that allows GUMM royalties, by the time P&G and Wrigley take their cut there won't be anything but chump change left over for GUMM. You can bet on that. Of course, the shills will jump with glee over whatever they get and call it a "windfall". Beggars can't be choosers.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (3912)	8/7/2001 4:21:34 PM
From: rli123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Kevin --- What you're missing is an understanding of the Asset Purchase Agreement --- which, according to the Proxy filed with the SEC, includes: "As additional consideration, Wrigley will pay royalties to the Company equal to 5% of: * gross manufacturing sales, if any, of certain products (the "P&G Products") developed pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement between the Company and The Procter & Gamble Company for a period of three years after the first date on which any P&G Product is launched, subject to a maximum of $1.2 million; and My assumption is that the Crest dental gum qualifies (I think this is a reasonable assumption, although certainly some may differ). So, the answer to my question, Dan, is 5% up to $1.2 million. Not alot, but we'll take it. And Hank --- that's 5% of GROSS MANUFACTURING SALES, not profits --- are you still hallucinating? rli