To me the only close to reasonable explanation for this is that if management said something like "we used the Apo yardstick when we really should have identified the chemical scaffold that our platform is based on". That still leaves, however, two questions to me. The first being are all compounds in the current RVX portfolio based on the same scaffold? and the second being how does the distinction of raising Apo to a certain threshold fit into the new definition? The threshold seemed to me to be a key determinant initially. As I said earlier I'm not that concerned about the final definition because I'm an owner of both and the royalty is a defined net royalty and not overwhelming large especially in its gross dollar context. What does concern me a great deal is that management doesn't seem to be able to get this right and between the apparently ever changing definition of this royalty agreement and the flipping of IP back and forth between the two companies how can any new investor be sure of what they are investing in. That is a big problem. If I was managing a fund of some sort or a serious analyst (the kind DM talks about but has yet to deliver) this would give me great pause. To me, if there wasn't an LoC hanging over RVX, the way to fix this would be to roll the IP into a new op co and then create a capital corp which has a solid, global royalty definition that is written in stone. The new capital corp ownership would of course have to consider the current ownership of The RPS's. Management to me has really botched up the royalty preferred/IP issue and this is classic reactive vs proactive decision making. All JMO
