Rorschach answer. They will sell the company if they find somebody to buy it and the shareholders approve. They don't need more staff as they can outsource the testing but there need is financial. They don't have the cash to fund clinical trials.
How is this answer represent a distinct answer as contrasted to 2 to 4 years ago? Yes, RD rights. But a more honest reflection is not my take, or NI's take, or Hay's take, but, to visualize the share price... not as an instant fear-based, or euphoria-based instant in time, but as a graph showing the long haul over the past 5-6 years.
One can argue if this is a fair valuation, or an unfair valuation, but it is an honest valuation of the company. It would appear to this observer(sorry to sound pompous)that if the real-world choice is between diluting the company to allow 3-6 months of cash for "operations" versus selling the company for 25 cents(or a bit more) than I would opt for a quick sale.
As to getting some additional cash so they can a. sell the company or ink a deal, I would propose two question to those in favor of another financing here:
1. Cortex must have known there cash would run out around now. In fact, Varney probably knew to the week when the cash would run out a year ago. So the issue of finding more money because they need time to arrange a sale of the company begs the question; what have they been doing the past 12 months to facilitate a sale of the company.
2. If, and this is strong hunch, there is no near-term deal waiting on a few signatures, then what will another 3-6 months of cash accomplish? Will it refocus those in negotiations they can't wait us out? Or will this same brilliant tactic be employed again in six months? More than two questions, but what the heck.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
