RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:FilingIf TH is even all that interested in acquiring the final two tranches (I suspect they may not be) then if they can meet the other requirements, they would be need to add revenues via another means as one has to presume they cannot add the required revenues from their old, existing products. The Tranche 3 $90 million revenue target is within possibility but the $110 million tranche 4 seems far-fetched without acquiring additional revenues. The requirement to get the F8 approved before the end of 2023 certainly seems like a stretch for Tranche 3 and that is required to get the extra year of interest only and a one year extension on the term of the loan. They might be able to get the F8 by March 2024, but with how these things go, even that might be difficult.
In my view, NASH is all but dead, so getting F8 approved is solely for the purposes of increasing egrifta sales if that is correct. It is likely worth pushing forward on F8 just for normal egrifta sales but I am not sure what the costs of that might be.
In any event, getting the F8 approved might be an even bigger hurdle than getting to the revenue numbers.
palinc2000 wrote: YEP ....Any product ..Not necessarily existing products ...A 3rd and a 4 th etc
I am of the opinion that the targets do not include additional products but this is not to say that there wont be new products thru distribution agreements ,in licensing and the likes
qwerty22 wrote: “Product” means any products manufactured, sold, developed, tested or marketed by or on behalf of Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries.
3rd product?
palinc2000 wrote:
Page 15
“Net Revenue” means, for any period, net revenue from commercial sales of Products, excluding license fees, royalty income and milestone payments, of the Borrower and the Subsidiaries during such period, as determined in accordance with IFRS. Net Revenue shall be determined in a manner consistent with the methodologies, practices and procedures used in developing the Borrower’s audited financial statements.
palinc2000 wrote:
Net revenue is a defined term and includes only Profuct Revenue anf excludes milestones royalties etc
Wino115 wrote:
From a purely FASB accounting standpoint any royalty income, milestone payment or purchase of a territorial right with a one time upfront payment would hit the revenue line in the year it hit your bank accounts. Any purchase of equity in THTX to go along with a partnership would not. It would be a capital increase on the balance sheet with no revenue impact.
In fact, you could structure any upfront payment to buy the territory or fund RD to meet these revenue targets.
If they wanted to, the lender could have specified net product revenue but they didn't. Not that it matters because if they got a partnership deal it means the trial is moving positively, the share should appreciate (you can sell some ATM at good prices), you may be over the convert price, and you likely don't need the high cost debt.
palinc2000 wrote:
I dont think parnership payments would be considered as revenue..
BTW the growth in revenue is nothing new.You hesrd it from me before !!! Lol
qwerty22 wrote:
The growth in revenue if it just came from the approved drugs would be impressive. Quite challenging with just Tesa and Trog?
Would partnership payments count as revenue? The issue with those is they are unpredictable in terms of when they land.
Do they have another revenue stream in mind?
The revenue numbers do make you think.
PWIB123 wrote: THTX wouldn't have agreed to this if they didn't believe the milestones were achievable. There might be some stretch objectives toward the end, but we can rest assured that the company thinks the funding amounts achievable are enough to get them where they need to go to bridge the next gap or gaps with enough capital to show new evidence that will release even more funding in the future.