Led. I believe that was a proper reply to Clayton's answer. 

For all those that say "cut DM some slack because negotiating deals often involves .... bla bla bla invert obvious pitfalls here"

i say  - the pitfalls of negotiating deals are abundant and obvious, so obvious that simple investors such as ourselves can Rymm off a number of them, so if WE can plainly see them, then imagine what we should expect from the CEO of a publicly traded company. He should not have used the word "will". No slack from this guy on THIS issue! Period!

regards DND

I agree with you on this one led. I was very disappointed to learn that this licensing deal that DM said will happen by year end has been missed. His already low credibility with me just took another huge hit. 

Adding to the disappointment was the no NASDAQ listing,

DM not talking to the big guys at big pharma

and DM believing  BF will wait until after the midway study next year to make us any offers. 

Thanks Torpeedo for your info. No one here is questioning the truth in what you have told us about your conversation with Don and I certainly have no reason to doubt what you have told us at this point. This news is all a bitter pill to swallow but explains more about the low volume we are having in the wake of an anticipated licensing agreement. 

If there is a good reason we missed this one then DM needs to explain it, otherwise the buck stops with him and any criticism towards him over this one is fair game in my opinion. 

Regards DND

Kelsee I would agree that there appears that something else good is going on that we don't know about. We can only be certain about that which the company had already disclosed though. 

1) an agreement is coming by year end

2) prosperity payments (my words) from RVX to Zenith are going to be voted on Dec 15

A reasonable person may deduce from this move by DM to set up "prosperity payments" to Zenith in the event that RVX succeeds in the future, would make one believe in a scenario where DM sells RVX and keeps Zenith in my opinion. And that would be good for both RVX and Zenith owners (I own only RVX).

Let's say someone had offered DM 2B us$ for RVX for instance. I could see DM saying " that's too low an offer and once you make it big with all the blood sweat and tears that I put into this company, I would be full of regret for selling it to you at that price. How about I make these following changes on December 15 so that I can still reep benefits from the success that is sure to come, then I will sell it to you for the 2B." Or words to that effect.  

Again, Just my speculation on the matter and surely not investment advise.

Regards DND

I agree with you Golf. Why would a company hook their plow up to our RVX horse when that horse not only currently has a contract to plow other fields but also may end up with additional contracts down the road to plow even more fields whenever the primary owners see fit? You know that would be fine if ours was one of a few horses available, but there are so many more horses out their with much less fine print on their saddles.

Just my thoughts on the matter. 

Im still in for the long haul.

Regards DND

I have never been able to add an avatar without getting an error message. Even since the change over. I have little patience for wasted time so I have given up on it. 

DND

Yes some speculation there for sure SF.

In my opinion, the message that concerns me the most that RVX  is sending with this upcoming modification of the RPS is, that as long as DM and KD have the votes and also own a majority of Zeneth, then they can make any changes they want 3 months from now, 6 months from now, 1 year from now that could move money from the coffers of RVX to that of  Zenith. Perhaps someone can answer this for me....why would the board of a company want to partner with RVX if DM and KD not only have the ability to do this but have shown a history of doing it?

The only way I can see a board making a bid for RVX in this scenario, is to not have a licensing agreement with us, but instead purchase RVX in order to prevent any further motions to bleed profits. And if this ends up being the case (a purchase of RVX) does this new proposal not lower the purchase value of RVX come December 16 once this vote has passed? Not investment advise and just My thoughts on the matter.

regards

DND