Just my opinion but if I was a CEO looking to provide greater benefit to the Majority of holders, I may contemplate such action.
I have no doubt that it woud seem like a natural thing to do however it would amount to a CEO breach of fiduciary duty to RVX-only shareholders. Putting aside the possibility that this proposed amendment is related to a buyout, I'll re-iterate my grave concern.
The proposed "whole portfolio" royalty grab to Zenith does not enhance the value of RVX, it diminishes it by restricting its revenues on all intellectual property present and future. So try to look at it from this RVX shareholder's point of view who invested based on the deal at hand (post-Zenith-carve out) and then the deal is suddenly changed dramatically just like that with all the broad additional benefits going to Zenith and all the broad and far reachihng negatives going to Resverlogix bag holders. I don't feel like I am being treated fairly. The conflict-of-interest issues and the potential breach of fiduciary duty to all RVX shareholders are two really big elephants in the room right now. JMHO
