Paladin ... like your thinking ...

If I am "BP" my interest is long term sales revenues and ROI, and my offer leverage (and fear) is regulatory uncertaintry and current RVX financial operations risk (financial desperation?), and a very nervous market & possibly nervous financiers, and time.

For the "goodwill" portion (IP, patents, past & current R&D,assets, library, scientific staff) of a deal  - I might offer $500m-1b up front, and an earn-out over time -or- lump some upon certain regulatory milestones that match up with the "if's" of the future market potential. The "goodwill" is worth more as it gains foundation to commecialization certainty and likelihood of a handsome future ROI (hello regulatory! - FDA, EMA, Asia, etc). If TLD/FLD was successful, then the "up front" becomes MUCH larger, if not a full valuation buy-out, as RVX leverage is at a premium for negotiation. The closer RVX gets to that status, RVX regains some deal leverage, and the more the "up front" payment that can be commanded rises.

If I am "RVX", it comes down to confidence in what's ahead, and time/finances (operational security) to get there, or at least further down the path, to get closer to the deal you WANT, versus acquiescing to the deal you NEED (in desperation) and are forced to take (lower front end, heavy back end). I feel this is why short term financing is vital, for time to gain regulatory enlightenment and determinations, becuase right now the "purchasing/partnering" assumption MUST remain "uncertainty and risk" till proven otherwise.

At some point in time and information discovery, the lines cross at a "deal point" which is mutually acceptable to all ... with either BP raising an offer/deal that RVX investors can't pass up based on ROI goals, or RVX backs down out of desperation or for future opportunities that make sense.

IOW, RVX could probably "hand off" the car keys for apabetalone at no cost to BP right now, and BP would take it and work to develop it, bring it to market, with a large back end financial benefit to RVX, ... but ALL of the risk falls to RVX in that extreme survival deal structure.

I'm naturally assuming RVX would ideally like to "sell" the goodwill plus future commercialization ROI value for a large up front return ($4-8b? or more?) for its investors and immediate gratification, and pass the future risk fully to BP.      

So, every incremental inch moving toward regulatory acceptance moves the up front purchase amount higher, potentially toward a full buy out if commercialization confidence can be more assured and risk reduces to go with safety profiles, market size, and unmet needs.

It doesn't hurt to "ethically" advise all potential suitors that multiple discussions are underway, so they can all evaluate their business risk as well as their regulatory risk in assessing how bad they want apabetalone (and epigentics / RVX goodwill) and/or want to keep it away from their competitors. A game of chicken.

Hopefully we hear news from regulatory in the next few months one way or another to help refine the "what ifs" and better define the competitive calculus above.

IMHO - We need 6-12 months operational financing secured, and news from regulatory during that time ideally. If the news from regulatory is good-great, RVX gets back in prime position to negotiate aggressively (apabetalone is coming - who wants it the most?). If funding is weak and/or regulatory news is weak then RVX may need a back-loaded survival deal (assuming there isn't big money investors sitting on the sidelines waiting to jump in?).

Just speculating (guessing) and jmho's ... just think something like this "must" be occurring to some degree with several suitors? Lots of sub-variations and other flavors potentially as well?