Aiming4, your evidence for COR management's foresight undercuts your claim. They raised cash under unfavorable terms, and it isn't enough to make much of a difference. The notion that inlicensing might bail the company out has been almost uniformly seen as an utterly foolish course of action, since development of an inlicenced drug would come at the cost of ampakine development.
I've deleted a lengthy disquisition on why COR is dead meat, since this isn't particularly helpful. The focus should instead be on what the company HAS to do, namely:
>Provide the investment community with a robust development timeline, for indications likely to gain approval by the FDA (i.e. orphan/neurodegenerative/short term) that can be executed with the funds available within a year.
>Jettison the compound by compound partnership model. The company needs to focus on bringing any ampakine to market for any indication, and to do this, it needs to provide bigger entities the incentives to establish a partnership. The most attractive candidate is likely AZ.
>The company needs to engage in buyout negotiations.
I think all three of these tasks need to be undertaken in parallel. Development of a feasible in-house clinical program will constrain the scope of any partnership deal, and buyout negotiations will provide leverage to establish partnerships under acceptable terms. By the same token, credible in-house and partnership proposals will increase the company's perceived value in the event that a buyout begins to take shape.
To the extent that the first or second tasks are impracticable, the third task should be undertaken, with some realism about the company's value.
Unless we're all delusional about the promise of ampakines, I think that there has to be a way forward.
