I think 10-41's question "If Don, were to leave Resverlogix and seek a similar CEO position at another biotech firm, how much could he reasonably expect to receive? Given his educational background and track record so far, how much could he reasonably expect to get somewhere else?" pretty much sums up the whole issue of CEO compensation and also why no funding from healthcare funds comes Resverlogix way. Don has, that we can see, no relevant education and no track record of accomplishment in biotech unless you include years of barely keeping bankruptcy at bay and keeping the share price at rock bottom accomplishments. I would agree that missed trial endpoints have certainly contributed to lower share price at times but they don't explain to me why there is no positive response to things like BTD or the positive CoVid news of late. To me that is rooted in business failures at RVX.  

I agree with Narmac that Don has the rich investors that collectively so far have not let the company fail but at the same time this practice allows them to get a bigger bang for their buck because the share price is low. It also allows executives/board members to benefit excessively because they are being compensated with RSUs that are priced low at issue and therefore they receive more RSUs per dollar of compensation than they would at a reasonable share price.  This all means retail investors are diluted excessively. 

Koo I don't think after 15-20 years of scientific achievement and BTD you can consider RVX a start up.  As said I think the science with BTD and the extremely low market cap could attract a very well qualified new CEO who would view RVX as both a great reputational as well as financial opportunity. Given the BTD and the large potential market opportunities, I think a well qualified CEO with a plan and industry connections would have no problem accessing sources of capital that are unavailable to Don. 

Very interesting discussion but I seriously doubt if anything changes in this regard, I don't think the big investors or the executives/BoD want to change a program that in my opinion is decidedly to their collective benefit vs ordinary shareholders.