There is a big difference here: During the previous search for funding, the backstory was: We need money, or else we will die, and will never find out if the platform is worth something. Now, if they do go for funding, it will be: We need money to finish the trial that will show that the platform is worth something (this sets aside the SA possibilities for now).
The new model is of optionable agreements, and Cortex would be in a position where this would be very possible. It is increasingly employed when a company has a big event coming, but the outcome, and value of that event, remain to be seen. The larger partner pays a small upfront amount (a few million) in exchange for the option to license the program if the data is good, at a predetermined price. Thus, Company A could offer Cortex $5 million for the ADHD option. If they don't like the results, they walk away, Cortex keeps the $5 million. If the results are good, the predetermined upfront license price might be another $20 million, just picking numbers semi-randomly. Cortex gets the assurance of some money in the bank to see them through without dilution, the partner gets dibs on the ADHD program without risking a price increase during an auction of the rights post-trial.
BTW--I suspect that Biovail offered Cortex Plan A or Plan B: Plan A is what they did, Plan B could have been a licensing rather than an acquisition, but much less upfront. Royalties in 2017 are worth much less to Cortex at this point than receiving $10 million instead of $5 million (again, guessing at numbers).
NeuroInvestment
