fuzzyjr - Wow it looks like you woke up with a case of the grumpies yesterday. That's okay it happens to all of us once in a while.

After breaking down what you implied in your post it seems like you might be missing something. If we get a deal with $100 million up front we would then be debt free again and our IP would no longer be tied up. There would be enough in the til to cover the burn for more that the 3 years that you are concerned about. What you don't seem to have allotted for is the cost of the trial. Any company making a deal with us is likely going to be paying for the trial as well which will likely be in the $100 to $200 million range in addition to the $100 million up front that you are referring to.

The 3 years also needs to be looked at. When you re-read the press release from June 22 it suggests that there will be a Futility Analysis in the BoM2 trial which has the possibility of cutting that trial time down substantially. If they were to repeat what they did in BoM and get a 50% or greater reduction in CHF wouldn't there be at least a reasonable chance that the trial would be halted for ethical reasons and allow all trial participants the opportunity to be on apabetalone? 

After doing a deal with a partner, assuming that partner would be a larger pharma company who has committed $200 to $300 million at that point, would almost certainly change the dynamics of how anyone would then look at RVX. Not only would it be that pharma overseeing the trial but the FDA has now also has a much bigger role as we now have BTD in multiple indications as per the last news release.

Other than the money the single biggest difference would be that a larger pharma co would then be driving the bus. 

Given the above, if we do get some kind of a partnership deal with $100 million up front I think it would have a very dramatically positive impact on the share price.

All IMO, do your own DD

tada