RE:RE:For the gamblersFor what EUO is TODAY, a 50% or 70% premium would be a lovely gift in my humble opinion.
Yes, it certainly would be BUT there is another theoretical outcome:
SICPA decides that litigation is cheaper than paying the future royalties as they have their own in-house lawyers as well as lawyers around the world on retainer.
If EUO gets cut off from the SICPA payments, it will probably run out of money within 12 months given EUO’s typical burn rate plus the added litigation cost.
Would SICPA take this route? It’s anyone’s guess but one thing is certain, SICPA is no stranger to international contract disputes.
PS: The charge per liter indicated in the Philippine contract is a fraction of what other known contracts are paying and to top it off, SICPA has to share this “bounty” with SGS. I very much doubt SICPA is going to willingly remit funds to someone they must by now consider a “free loader” as they clearly overpaid to start with clearly in anticipation of the EU potential which got delayed by 5 years.