A reverse split has nothing to do with the goals you outline. It does nothing to enhance the perceived value of the company: If the market cap is $12 million, it remains $12 million, minus whatever the costs of the restructuring are, and minus the generally inevitable erosion of valuation associated with what is generally seen as desperate sleight of hand. Other than relisting and purchase limitations for some funds, where one is dealing with minimum share price requirements, or circumventing a ceiling on shares-available-for-sale, there is no other benefit--you don't build company value. If you slice a pie into 10 pieces, or fifty, does not change the size of the pie.
That's completely separate from whether Cortex would sell a majority share to a new investor (I don't recall a small public CNS company ever doing that)--or a change in management (that is suggested by some participants on this board, I have never heard anyone in the industry say that Cortex's problems lay in its management). Neither of those require a reverse split.
Now--if something occurs that changes the value of the company, be it a sale or licensing of assets--a reverse split might be a consideration in terms of getting the share price to a point where relisting with Cortex's fiscal runway defined in months, spending money on attorneys and filing fees to do a RS would be counterproductive.
NeuroInvestment
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
