It was helpful to me to see the shareholder update in the Mar 10th, 2022 Life Sciences Investor Forum (p4). It’s an impressive list and we are all caught in the same spot having our investments eroded over many years. My investments are small in comparison so I can get out if I choose. The bigger investors can’t get out without the share price plummeting.

Back 20 years ago when I was working with a promising startup company building a strategic plan a young, very bright Western MBA who had about 7 years of experience in venture capital at the time told me that the most significant problem that happens with start ups is that they either fail to ask for or fail to achieve sufficient financing in the early stages in order to keep advancing their products/services without having to continuously panic and be distracted by the continuous need for new funds. Remarkably RVX has managed to stay alive but it is a constant state of disarray due to ineffective financing. For example, perhaps the decision to not do the futility analysis in BOM and the previous trial were the result of insufficient funds, hence losing 4 to 5 years in apabetalone’s march to being an approved drug.

In the past when I have been critical of management other posters reminded me that Don is not working in a vacuum. He reports to the Board of Directors. So why is a company with FDA BTD in this fragile financial state and why isn’t the board doing their job?

It doesn’t take long to examine the 5 person BOD and come to the conclusion that it has structural and resource deficits.

1. The CEO and COB are the same person. That does not lead to objectivity in decision-making particularly when the COB signs off on the Compensation Committees’ compensation recommendation for performance. Nor at performance reviews.
2. Norma Biln has an MBA with a marketing background but it does seem evident at this stage that she is providing marketing expertise (i.e in media training and branding)
3. Kelly McNeill is a former RVX employee and an accountant by training. (friend of Don???).
4. Ken Zuerblis is an accountant by training.

It is fine to have accountants but their skill will be required more when RVX becomes a revenue generating company.

What this company needs is biotech financial gurus to occupy the majority of board seats.

My recommendation to RVX is as follows;

1. Increase the BOD size from 6 to 7 members.
2. Replace Norma, Kelly and Ken. This leaves 4 positions to fill with financing and business expertise.
3. Appoint a board member from CD Ventures (specifically Christoph Boehringer).
4. Appoint a board member from NGN Capital. Does anyone recall if Dr Peter Johann of NGN, who also had worked at Boehringer Ingelheim, was an RVX board member at one point in time?
5. Appoint 2 independent members from McKinsey & Co’s Life Sciences Division or equivalent. These would be people with MBAs in finance and 10 years+++ of experience in biotech venture capital or financing. This could also be someone from one of the many companies like Versant.
6. These people would then vote on a new COB to replace Don thus creating a more objective management system.
7. Create a performance audit committee to evaluate the CEO’s progress against pre-established targets.
8. This BOD, unlike most boards, should be active in the business with a very close eye on the performance of the RVX Management Team.

Given that the BOD is supposed to represent the interests of shareholders this structure should improve accountability, reporting and integrity.

This, of course is wishful thinking but it sure would move the business ahead a lightning speed.

On a separate observation the Asian interest in ownership (Hepa = 34.6, ORI = 6.6., CTS China = 4.2, Efung Shenzhen = 1.2) is large at 46.6% share ownership. We know that ORI and Hepaliknk work together but beyond that I don’t know if there is any significance.

Does anyone know what the CTS China Fund V Partnership is?

I just tried to review the Mar 10th presentation again and can’t get in so just a couple of points from recall.

1. When presenting to potential investors it is important to look professional. If Eversana is going to be the brand positioning champion they should at least give Don enough media training so that the background in his webcasts is bright, fresh and interesting from a biotech POV. Have Don just watch the nightly news and he should get the idea.
2. Ideally, if the presentation is going to be 95% science then let the RVX scientists share the spot light. RVX has many bright lights. Let them shine. This could help rebuild trust in the brand.
3. From what I recall the only business that was discussed was brief and near the end it was the new version of the brown envelop story from 12 years ago i.e. “We’ve got lots on the go be we can’t discuss it yet”. Sorry Don. We’ve been tricked too many times.

Best of luck to all. I’m hoping good times are coming. Happy spring.

Toinv