Koo, good question about how a potential CVR deal would handle the current licensing arrangements. Could those licensing arrangements just be assumed by the buyer?

Your preferred scenario of Resverlogix not being sold but continuing to license apabetalone and continue its R&D and other clinical operations is surely plausible. Perhaps apabetalone could be wrapped into a CVR deal but all other IP is retained by Resverlogix to continue non-apabetalone endeavors? 

My question is at what point is apabetalone derisked enough that it no longer makes sense to attach contingencies associated with a CVR and instead demand that the buyer assume any remaining risks with a complete non-CVR buyout?

There are definitely still risks. BETonMACE may fail to achieve statistical significance in its primary outcome. The relative risk reduction might be good, but not great. Secondary outcomes may also fail to achieve statistical significance. There may be an effect on heart attacks and stroke but no effect on CV death (the biggie). There may be adverse events disclosed upon full data release even with nothing flagged yet with DSMB reports. The FDA and/or EMA may require more safety or other data and delay approval. The FDA/EMA may not approve. Sales may lag behind projections.

As each of these are checked off, the purchase price gets higher due to progressive de-risking and the portion encapsulated by a CVR becomes less valuable. If top line data is favorable, I doubt management would do anything before seeing the full data set. And if the data is strong, then why attach contingencies to a potential blockbuster? The only reason to attach contingencies at that point is concerns about FDA/EMA approval and sales. At that point, the buyer needs to just decide to play ball and buy the whole non-CVR enchilada or go home hungry. In my opinion, those FDA/EMA approval risks are ones that the buyer assumes, not the shareholders of Resverlogix.

BearDownAZ