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 : Celgene-CELG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (264)	2/10/1999 10:50:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 804

<I didn't read contract between ENMD and BMY, but if you have right of first refusal of something (who has second right, third,..and so on???, actually who needs first right to refuse), than there is option (under certain condition) to buy the same. > I cannot comment on the meat of the subject, being weather Bristol "passed" vs ENMD not selling. HOWEVER, a right of first refusal is distinct from an option! If I have an option on something (a piece of land) I have the right to exercise that option under the terms of the contract for the price stated. Here's you $1, I'll take the land. Under a right of first refusal I would have the right to step in and buy the land for the same terms that you have agreed to sell it for, or pass only if you've agreed to sell it. Hence you are correct in assuming a right of first refusal has option like qualities, but here it is ENMD that decides to sell and dictates price at THEIR option, and that event forces Bristol to decide. It's hard to imagine that Bristol "passed" if ENMD never tried to sell, since Bristol's rights are contingent apon that event. DAK DAK

To: Miljenko Zuanic who wrote (264)	2/11/1999 2:29:00 PM
From: John Bloxom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 804

Miljenko: My information on the decision not to license endo came from Gubish (Edward as I recall) at ENMD itself. Also from an investment banker who worked on the IPO and has followed the company since. I am comfortable with it. Endo is a much simpler molecule than angio in that (and I am relying completely on third hand info here) it has only a fraction of the refolding points of angio and therefore should be easier to produce recombinantly. It also would seem to be more potent than angio. Why would ENMD, fresh with pocketfuls of BMY's money from the angio deal, and with NCI footing most or all of the bill on the endo development, have licensed it out so close onto discovery? A license to BMY at that point (even now) just doesn't make sense. BTW, see the NCI endo news today? To all: Sorry about spouting off here on ENMD. Forgot where I was. John