1. It helps CRY gain access to more surgeons so that they end up selling a lot more BioGlue. BioGlue has an 85% gross profit, so every dollar in BioGlue sales contributes substantially to CRY's bottom line.
2. It permits cost sharing between two product lines. This is similar to having a roommate pay half the rent, instead of paying it all yourself.
Note: The gross profit margins for BioGlue and MPH are roughly the same. MPH is simpler to use. Probably 75% to 80% of the MPH market is in niches where CRY currently has no presence. Hence, CRY may think Medafor is a good fit, but Medafor does not think so, in part because of this reason. CRY has close to a 70% gross profit on HemoStase. This is a pretty good arrangement, because without litigation it should not take much of management's time. If there were to be any "cross selling" of HemoStase and MPH, SGA and GS should go shoot a round of golf, go to the 19th hole, eat steak and lobster, have a few cocktails, run some simple calculations on the back of a napkin, and agree on a number. It could, and should, be that simple. Then both companies would win. Right now they are engulfed in a win-lose battle, so presently things are difficult to predict.
Dlhild; You make a good common sense case, but we all know that's not what's happening. Not even close to it! Even if they did have a few on the 19th and come to a number; For the Med shareholders one would think it would have to be a "cash deal", which I don't believe Cry could do. I'm not sure Med shareholders would be open to having a bunch of Cryo stock after what I've learned the past couple weeks.