GAC thanks for reiterating the points I made in my post of Jan 8 post regarding the Medison deal. I still don’t see an obvious benefit to signing this type of no cash deal either, when at some point presumably that license will have value if and when Apabetalone is approved. As both you and RM2 have alluded to this would appear to me to somewhat lessen the implied value of a license for Apabetalone. If there was going to be some participation in the clinical costs, especially if it were retroactive, I could begin to understand it in the context of a small territory. That does not seem to be the case here.

If there were to be early approval for Apabetalone in Israel as a result of this deal then I could see benefit there. I’m certainly no expert here but what I have read seems to indicate that approval in Israel is often linked to EMA approval so again where is the benefit.

For years now Don has talked about Licensing deals as a potential source of non dilutive funding for RVX and now the first one they complete which does not involve an equity stake also does not involve any funding through fees. To me this sets a poor precedent. As far as validation for Apabetalone goes I don’t see that either given that most companies in any distribution type business would tie up a new potentially lucrative product for free if the opportunity arose. Given the context of Dons previous revenue through licensing talk, I think the company should do a better job of communicating the benefits of this apparent departure from that strategy. JMO