A couple of comments on today's news:

First, to state the obvious, the only reason Hepalink has for making a right of first refusal deal is that want to secure that they do not miss out on the rights to RVX208. If Resverlogix was close to having a licensing deal with BP, it would seem a weird move to sign a right of first refusal with Hepalink. Thus, I do not think that Resverlogix is close to having a deal with BP and the most likely threat to Hepalink's rights to RVX208 is something else - most likely Eastern Capital. It occurs to me that Resverlogix as well as Hepalink might fear that Eastern could consider having objections to the private placement needed for paying back the loan - in which case Resverlogix would default and the rights to RVX208 could end up in Eastern's hands. The ROFR cannot be terminated in the first 60 days if Hepalink doesn't agree - 60 days from now is - well, more or less exactly when the loan is due. I think that is an interesting coincidence. If there is no private placement, the closer Resverlogix gets to the date the loan is due, the more obvious it gets to TSX that there is financial hardship and Resverlogix would be allowed to sell each and every asset they have without permission from shareholders. With the ROFR, Eastern can be assured that they cannot buy RVX208 for next to nothing - Hepalink has the right of first refusal. Consequently, the incentive for Eastern to block the private placement - if that is what they want - seems to disappear with the ROFR. When the loan is paid back (a date that coincides with the 60 days in the ROFR), both RVX and Hepalink are free to cancel the agreement without cause.

Bottomline: Resverlogix gets 8 million dollars to pay bills here and now. That is a well chosen amount. More could have eliminated the financial hardship condition they need for the exemption from shareholder approval. Less would not have been enough to keep adding patients to BETonMACE.

While not a scenario I think is very likely, I would not be surprised if the LoI is from Hepalink and if there is going to be a vote on December 12th on a regional deal with Hepalink. After all, it would be a bit easier for Hepalink to pay a substantial sum for the US rights if they in reality are paying 43% of the money to themselves through their ownership in Resverlogix.

Just my thoughts - all of it is guessing on my part - please do you own due diligence.

Best regards,

BKC