I think that you are assuming there is a lot of regulatory risk simply due to being a small company with a valuable treatment that BP is both motivated and able to stop from getting approval. That might even be the case though I doubt it. I mean, yes we all know that BP has huge lobbying clout wrt to Congress, but does that really mean they can lean on the FDA in this specific case for approval as well? If you have any experience that gives you insight into the whole process in the FDA, I'm all ears; otherwise this talk is like barstool banter. Especially when you're talking about measuring that risk vs a purely theoretical buyout at an unspecified price.
By the way, it's not clear to me whether or not you are assuming that the data is good enough to get approved by the FDA and the only risk is that BP has reach into the FDA to screw with them. I do think you are falsely claiming L&L were incompetent in maybe not blocking interference by somebody with CofI when that conflict could not be known or certainly not proven until after the fact of some decision when the person left the FDA for employment with a competitor. I guess you are assuming that there was some kind of after-the-fact path for appeal of a decision based on one person involved in the decision later having been shown to have had a CofI, that L&L failed to avail themselves of. As I had pointed out, imo that's a completely different situation from knowing before a decision is made that there are conflicted parties allowed to be involved in making the decision.
Anyway, the whole discussion is highly theoretical and to me it's meaningless without even positing a value on the supposed buyout or partnership deal. Then it also depends a lot on what the ultimate trial data looks like esp the comparisons between ITT treatment and SOC populations and the p-values, among other data, and how much that moves the market for the stock or not. I'm thinking there's a strong link between the stock price and how much they get offered. That might not be true if the offer is to buy the whole company, but any lessor financing deal could depend a lot on the stock price, which depends on how much more convinced the market is or isn't, based on the full trial data. If they got a partnership deal, presumably the stock would immediately appreciate to the value the partner placed on the deal, even if it were fairly lowball. But it's all totally abstract without any details on what kind of deal.
Anyway, I get what your argument is: it's too dangerous for them to try to 'run the gauntlet of BP influenced FDA' on the own - better to take even a very cheap offer. And your investment thesis is that some offer will be put on the table. Both are really huge assumptions. I'm not so worried about the game being fixed within the FDA, but rather I think the game depends a lot on the comparisons. I think they might be quite good and I sure hope and assume that will b enough to finally push the stock off its inertia, if no other news does that in the meantime.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
