Revance Therapeutics Inc (RVNC) News

Read the new 8k today from Revance talking about considering Teoxane
proposal and Crowns letter to Revance basically acting like “take our offer or we will back out”. How Teoxanes offer isn’t vetted, with no proof that their financing is all committed, therefore not even a valid offer. Basically telling.Revance that they’re not gonna budge and they’re not gonna extend their tender offer termination for next week. I think we all know they’re full of shit and still want the deal and will easily pay 4 to 5 dollars a share to get it. It’ll be interesting to see how long this battle takes, and who comes out on top. Myself and two of my good friends who are large holders of RVNC we’re just named as lead, plaintiffs through one of the biggest law firms and the first firm to file actual suit against Revance last week

What are your guesses about how much Crown will raise their offer price to and when?

With the negative response by the market, the arbs are not engaged..

Let the lawsuits against Teoxane begin! This has corruption written all over it.

I feel that Bill Meury (Chair of Crown and Hildred Capital Senior Adviser) will not want over 1 year of hard work and expense to slip away at just a $0.50/share higher price = $52M.

Background of Bill Meury: https://www.hildred.com/team/bill-meury
Allergan's Chief Commercial Officer from 2015 to 2020. Bill was with Actavis in 2014 and was instrumental along with Brent Saunders in blocking Valeant's hostile takeover of Allergan. Actavis then took on the Allergan name and was eventually acquired by Abbvie in 2019.
https://www.reuters.com/article/business/allergan-agrees-to-66-billion-actavis-offer-valeant-walks-idUSKCN0J00W7/

There are indications that Allergan looked at potentially acquiring Revance some 8 to 10 years ago. If these rumors are true, then Bill Meury would have been actively involved in those discussions. If this is the case, then Bill has been patiently stalking Revance waiting for an opportunity like this for almost 10 years.

There is a reasonably strong possibility that Crown will increase their offer price.

this offer wasn't shocking to me, anyway.. but needed the funds and loss to build positions in 3 other Bio's... good on you for still in game, we shall see how this drama plays out over coming days.. I think Anus( ANGUS, SORRY Still pissed about b.o.d's) is focused on Structure Thera and can give 2 sh*ts about shareholders :(
still, GLTA that own

Termination Fee. Revance may be required to pay the $13,373,000 termination fee to Crown if the A&R Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances, including by Revance to accept a Superior Proposal. The Revance Board considered the risk that the amount of the termination fee would deter potential alternative acquisition proposals.

Teoxane SA Announces Superior Proposal to Acquire Revance
Therapeutics for $3.60 per Share in
Cash
09:03 : Monday 6 January 2025

I still have ~ 1/3 of my shares only because they were the ones not underwater and I was generating tax loss for 2024. I just never got around to the selling the rest as we entered 2025. While I am glad of a higher offer, it would take a counter offer to lessen my annoyance a bit. From the outside it looked like Teoxane torpedoed the $6.66 price so I need Crown or some other entity to start a bidding war.

Do we think Crown will bid higher? Does Crown already have the 60% threshold of shares to force their buyout and thus is just Texoxane trying to get a higher sale price for their 8% stake

Teoxane SA Announces Superior Proposal to Acquire Revance
Therapeutics for $3.60 per Share in
Cash
09:03 : Monday 6 January 2025

https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=95199461&_gl=1*k8vpjc*_gcl_au*MjEwMzA0NjM5Ni4xNzM0Mjc3ODAz

Myself and 7 investors I know, are all signed up for the class action suit. We’ll see if they follow through.

Reading the 8k reminds me of the last four years of the Foley shit show. It reads like a novel where something nefarious has taken place and it leaves you asking why you didn’t figure it out sooner. Foley is doing his best to cut a deal to maximize his return and the shareholders be damm. In terms of the negotiations it was Foley who did it all and then took it back to the board to try and sell it to them . Receiving 100% of the 2024 bonus along with the golden parachute should be criminal. Who set the goals for 2024? Did Angus Russell even look at them ? Foley gives a number of reasons why he doesn’t feel the company as a standalone is not viable any longer.
Foley should be crucified for what he did to this company and all the shareholders he misled. I sincerely hope this drags out for years !!!

I'm not sure I understand.  Can you explain what you think is happening?

Would love Somas input on exactly what’s going on 🙏🏻

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001479290/131ddd4b-13d0-47bb-bc7d-c48125a5e8e2.pdf

can you link it here...it's not coming up

New 8k just dropped. Haven’t had a chance to read through the entire thing, but it appears that repents is going to allow all existing shareholders to keep their shares and go into the next entity and not going private

Exactly! I thought surely they were on board with the offer price, but nope. Can't have your cake and eat it too Teoxane.

Let’s hope 👍🏽

Is anyone in touch with Teoxane to coordinate a strategic alternative against this deal?

Well, they are one of the main reason the offer price got cut in half, now, they are complaining.

Understood. Things will get interesting only if Teoxane becomes an active participant in obtaining a better deal.

The question is whether withholding 6.4% is enough. Crown only needs to get 50% tendered for the deal to go through and the second step merger is then forced.

Teoxane of course is not happy as well as most of the shareholders who have held this stock for 6-7 years. Foley has conned shareholders for the last few years culminating with the 280 million sales in 2024 . There was no way in hell they were going to hit that number regardless of how many promises he made. The hour glass had emptied and he was doing what was the best deal he could get for himself period. He wants out and unfortunately those who have remained optimistic about the future are being taken to the cleaners. How can you agree to a $6.66 buyout and then settle for $3 four months later and feel good about it? I will say one thing for Foley, he is consistent!!!

Will Teoxane now refuse to tender its shares?That’s a reasonable inference from today’s 13D filing.

What does it mean for a company to enter into an agreement that it doesn't want to fulfill?

Will Teoxane now refuse to tender its shares? Is the filing a way to blow up a deal that the firm couldn't blow up in private conversation? Are they using the filing to send a message to other shareholders and to Crown?

It seems more likely now that shareholders won't tender.

Dear reader, please advise.

A battle brewing?

Teoxane just made a filing: Schedule 13D/A

Indicate that they are not happy with the price under Section 4 and are exploring alternatives...

FYI -

We received information on an upcoming corporate action for:

RVNC (Company Name: REVANCE THERAPEUTICS INC)

Election period starts: Dec 18, 2024 09:30 EST
Election period expires: Jan 13, 2025 13:00 EST

This corporate action presents several choices to the shareholder.

Revance is on track to do just under half the revenue I originally anticipated 2 years post commercial launch. That has been a disappointment as I did factor in premium pricing and duration at the time of launch. adoption curves, no matter how revolutionary a product is, still take time. 2 to 4 years is the initial early adopter phase followed by a 5 to 10 year rapid adoption phase. Think of the iphone and how it still took 8 years to hit peak annual sales market share in smartphones despite its relatively slow adoption the first 2 years. Also, look at Jeuveau market uptake. Evolus has an inferior toxin to Daxi but are now in their hockey stick adoption phase doing $60M a quarter in NT sales some 5 years post commercial launch. Evolus has done a great job running a lean marketing focused organization. Daxi is 20 months post commercial launch, it was priced too high at launch, it required injection pattern changes in the frontalis zone that were not known at the time of approval. The duration claims, while accurate in the glabella, were disappointing in the frontalis and lateral canthal zones. Still, Daxi is superior to the other toxins on a cost/performance basis and I still believe their market adoption is in the initial stages of significant gains. They simply didn't meet the initial hype of 5 to 6 months median duration in the frontalis and lateral canthal lines. They have course corrected now. Assuming Crown can run a lean and mean sales organization and Daxi should really start to shine over the next 5 years. Conservatively, I see Daxi achieving 20% market share of a $3.5B US aesthetic NT market in 4 to 5 years which is significantly higher than the November projections made in the 14d9. This is despite new low cost NT entrants from Hugel in 2025. Hugel plans to launch Letybo this year with Benev acting as the distribution partner. I am hearing they plan to launch at $200 per vial: https://www.hugel-aesthetics.com/our-approach. This is a korean made neurtoxin and will be the low cost leader in NT and will act to further pressure pricing across the industry and has spooked all NT makers and analysts. I expect that as Daxi scales production into 2027, they will achieve highly defensible production costs and establish a competitive presence in therapeutics which will allow them to really challenge Abbvie/Allergan.

We know from the political wars that authoritative voices can be lying.

Feels as if we're being cheated. I'll not tender.

FWIW, my derm KOL contacts tell me that based on feedback from other derms at recent conferences Daxi seems to be doing OK. For instance there was an injector conference this weekend in New York, and when asked who was using Daxi in their practice, barely any hands went up last year, but this year about half the attendees raised their hand. I am told there were about 200 attendees, most non-KOL doctors. As to why, what was mentioned was that the new pricing makes sense and that people are figuring out how to use the toxin. Seems in-line with what Soma was reporting from the West Coast.

By the way, they were surprised when I told them that RVNC says that therapeutic introduction is struggling. They are not neurologists, but they agreed that given the clinical benefit and the insurance coverage this should be an easy sell in therapeutic. They thought the PE company behind Crown will make a bundle...

So I am really puzzled...

Did your investment thesis change with the decrease in 2025-2040 forecasts provided in the filing? Personally i hoped for a failure in tender and reload in mid 1s-low 2s, but looks like competition is growing and the picture becomes less rosy.

I think a lot of this is CYA b.s. because Foley and the RVNC management team botched the execution... We have discussed forever the mistakes in the aesthetic market, and I am willing to give them some benefit of the doubt on that, but when we get "(iii) the slower than anticipated commercial trajectory of DAXXIFY® in both the cervical dystonia and glabellar lines indications, ..." when they have a clearly superior approved therapeutic product in a market with an unmet patient need, that is (another) sign of incompetence.

I didn't think they could screw up the therapeutic market, and this was the basis of my investment thesis, but apparently they did. And I will pay for it (dearly)... I thought that selling the therapeutic business to a pharma would be their hail Mary, but in retrospect I should have exited as soon as I saw who they hired to run that side of the business.

Some of the most interesting discussion in the filing:

At a meeting held on December 7, 2024, the Revance Board unanimously (i) determined that the A&R Merger Agreement, providing for the Offer and the Merger in accordance with Section 251(h) of the DGCL upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the A&R Merger Agreement, and the Transactions contemplated by the A&R Merger Agreement are advisable and in the best interests of Revance and Revance’s stockholders; (ii) approved the execution and delivery of the A&R Merger Agreement by Revance, the performance by Revance of its covenants and other obligations thereunder, and the consummation of the Offer and the Merger upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the A&R Merger Agreement; (iii) resolved to recommend that Revance’s stockholders tender their Shares to Merger Sub pursuant to the Offer, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the A&R Merger Agreement; and (iv) resolved that the Merger shall be effected under Section 251(h) of the DGCL. The Revance Board consulted with members of Revance management and representatives from Centerview and Skadden at various times, and considered a number of reasons, including the following non-exhaustive list of material reasons (not in any relative order of importance) that the members of the Revance Board participating in the decision believe support their unanimous decision and recommendation.
•
Business, Financial Condition and Prospects. The Revance Board considered certain factors, including, but not limited to, the current and historical financial condition, results of operations, business, market dynamics, competitive position, assets and prospects, as well as the long-range plan, of Revance and the execution risks associated with executing the long-range plan of Revance as a stand-alone company, including the impact of Revance entering into the Sixth Amendment and ANZ Agreement. Revance weighed the certainty of its stockholders realizing an upfront payment of $3.10 per Share in cash in the Offer and the Merger against the risks and uncertainties associated with Revance and its business as a stand-alone company (including the risk factors set forth in Revance’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the SEC on November 7, 2024 and its other public filings). The Revance Board also considered that given the Company’s forecasted liquidity based on the Company’s current operating plan and excluding any impact from the pending consummation of the Merger, there was substantial doubt about Revance’s ability to continue as a going concern and that in order to mitigate the substantial doubt to continue as a going concern, the Company may be required to refinance its debt, conduct additional offerings, restructure operations, sell assets or reduce operating expenses.
•
Market Dynamics. The Revance Board considered changes in the dynamics of the aesthetic injectable market and Revance’s performance and positioning in the market, including, among other things, (i) Revance’s ability to compete in an increasingly competitive neurotoxin and hyaluronic acid filler landscape, including several new entrants and additional expanded indications expected in both the Botulinum Toxin and Hyaluronic Acid Filler market, (ii) relatively flat growth in the US Hyaluronic Acid Filler Market, (iii) the slower than anticipated commercial trajectory of DAXXIFY® in both the cervical dystonia and glabellar lines indications, (iv) overall aesthetic injectable market headwinds, including frequency of patient visits softening and spend per visit down, (v) the trend toward increasing pricing pressure from aesthetic account consolidation and (vi) anticipated challenges with attracting and retaining top talent.
•
Financial Risks. The Revance Board considered the financial risk due to the size of Revance’s current debt and nearing maturities, which constrained Revance’s ability to fund DAXXIFY® clinical trials in therapeutics indications, ex-U.S. opportunities and further investment in U.S. aesthetics and therapeutics commercial infrastructure. Further, material operating expense reductions would likely be required to extend the cash runway of the Company which would further challenge revenue growth. The Revance Board also considered potential debt restructuring options, but all such options were likely to incur significant costs, carried significant risk or require significant equity dilution.
•
Cash Consideration; Certainty of Value. The Revance Board considered the fact that the Offer Price and Merger Consideration payable to Revance’s stockholders in the Offer and the Merger will consist entirely of cash, which will provide Revance stockholders with immediate liquidity and certainty of value. The
29
Revance Board believed this certainty of value was in the best interest of stockholders, especially when viewed against the risks and uncertainties associated with Revance’s stand-alone strategy and the potential impact of such risks and uncertainties on the trading price of Shares.
•
Negotiation Process. The Revance Board considered the fact that the terms of the Transactions were the result of robust, arms’ length negotiations conducted by Revance with the knowledge and at the direction of the Revance Board and with the assistance of independent financial and legal advisors. The Revance Board also considered that Revance engaged with multiple parties on their interests in pursuing a strategic transaction (as more fully described above in the section titled “—Background of the Offer and the Merger”). Additionally, the Revance Board considered the enhancements that Revance and its advisors were able to obtain as a result of negotiations with Crown, including the increase in Crown’s price per share to be paid at Closing from the October 30 Proposal and negotiating terms in the A&R Merger Agreement that increased the likelihood of completing the Offer and consummating the Merger. Finally, the Revance Board considered (i) Crown’s view of the then current value of Revance based on Revance’s recent performance, (ii) market conditions and Crown’s view of the impact of Revance entering into the Sixth Amendment and ANZ Distribution Agreement and (iii) Crown’s unwillingness to commence the tender offer to the Original Merger Agreement given Crown’s view of the change in value of Revance.
•
Potentially Interested Counterparties. The Revance Board considered, with the assistance of Revance management and advisors, the low likelihood that other strategic counterparties would engage with Revance on the same or a similar timeframe as Crown and on contractual terms and conditions superior to those contained in the A&R Merger Agreement. Following entry into the Original Merger Agreement, the Revance Board considered the fact that additional outreach to strategic counterparties would have violated the terms of the Original Merger Agreement and could therefore jeopardize a potential transaction with Crown and result in risks of leak and disruption to the existing process or to Revance’s employees and business and that, in the event a third-party became interested in pursuing a transaction on terms more favorable to Revance and its stockholders than those contemplated by the A&R Merger Agreement, the Revance Board would be able to respond to such a proposal due to the A&R Merger Agreement’s customary “fiduciary out” provisions. Under those provisions, Revance has the ability to terminate the A&R Merger Agreement and accept and enter into a definitive A&R Merger Agreement with respect to an unsolicited Superior Proposal (as defined in the A&R Merger Agreement) provided that Revance pays the termination fee to Crown. The Revance Board also considered the fact that any “don’t ask don’t waive” provision contained in Revance’s confidentiality agreements with other potentially interested parties would cease to be effective upon the execution of the A&R Merger Agreement and the announcement of the Transactions.
•
Strategic Alternatives. The Revance Board, with the assistance of Revance management and advisors, engaged in a comprehensive evaluation of strategic alternatives, including acquisitions of Revance or components of its business, additional capital raising, a merger, partnerships, collaborations and equity investments. During this process, Revance has engaged with over a dozen third parties across strategics and financial sponsors to determine interests in pursuing a transaction. As of August 11, 2024, Crown was the only party to submit a proposal in connection with a strategic transaction. As of the date hereof, Revance has not received any offer or proposal that constitutes a Superior Proposal or could reasonably be expected to lead to a Superior Proposal under the Original Merger Agreement.
•
Certain Management Projections. The Revance Board considered certain forecasts for Revance prepared by members of senior management, which reflected an application of various assumptions and scenarios of Revance’s management. The November Projections reflected Revance operating as a stand-alone business, in the absence of a deal with Crown, and incorporated management’s latest view of the market. These projections were provided to the Revance Board in connection with its consideration of the Offer and the Merger and to Centerview in connection with rendering their fairness opinions to the Revance Board. For further discussion, see “—Certain Financial Projections.”
•
Centerview’s Fairness Opinion and Related Analysis. The Revance Board considered the opinion of Centerview rendered to the Revance Board on December 7, 2024, which was subsequently confirmed by delivery of a written opinion dated such date that, as of such date and based upon and subject to the assumptions made, procedures followed, matters considered, and qualifications and limitations upon the
30
review undertaken by Centerview in preparing its opinion, the Merger Consideration to be paid to the holders of Shares (other than as specified in such opinion) pursuant to the A&R Merger Agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders, as more fully described below ”

I would be happy to buy back shares if the tender fails and Foley got fired.

You would also need the board to be altered up as they kept Foley in power and rewarded him.

I would be happy to buy back shares if the tender fails and Foley got fired.

Just too risky when Foley still involved, this guy clearly is against shareholders.

Tobin Shilke and Mark J. Foley. Got it. I'll nope out of all deals involving them from now on.

Over a dozen parties hosted at the Revance open house and it appears that a couple had real interest. My focus is on party B overture of $250M investment for majority control. In essence, they wanted to invest $250M for 50+% share ownership = just over 105M shares = a secondary offering at $2.40/share. I am not optimistic, but let's see how motivated they may be now that lower TO price has printed. Perhaps shareholders may be willing to accept a significant share dilution for the chance to recoup some losses if newco can right this ship rather than the Crown go private.

Highlights of the Schedule 14D-9:

On February 2, 2024, Party B, a strategic party, executed a non-disclosure agreement with Revance (the “Party B NDA”) in connection with Party B’s consideration of a potential strategic transaction with, or investment in, Revance. Prior to February 2024, Revance and Party B had general conversations related to the potential for the parties to consider a potential strategic transaction or other partnership opportunities, but no specific terms were discussed.

On March 4, 2024, Revance announced the pricing of an underwritten public offering of 16,000,000 Shares at a public offering price of $6.25 per share (except with respect to 30,000 Shares purchased by Mr. Foley at $6.98 per share).

[color=red]On April 3, 2024, Revance received a non-binding proposal from Crown indicating Crown’s interest in pursuing an acquisition of Revance for $9.25 per share in cash, which indicated that Crown’s proposed offer price would be subject to completion of customary due diligence (the “April Proposal”).[/color] The April Proposal represented a 105% premium to the closing stock price of Revance’s Shares on April 2, 2024, the last trading day prior to the April Proposal. The April Proposal was based on certain assumptions made by Crown, including its review of publicly available information, information provided to date, and preliminary discussions with Revance.

On July 22, 2024, Mr. Foley met with representatives from Party B to continue discussions regarding a potential collaboration for a minority investment. No specifics on valuation or investment amount were discussed.

On August 10, 2024, a representative of Centerview met with a representative of PJT to discuss the offer price per share based on Revance’s latest available internal capitalization information. The representative of PJT confirmed that based on the fully diluted equity value offer of $719 million, the final price per share based on updated capitalization information is $6.66 per share (the “Original Offer Price”).

August 16th, 2024 Teoxane Breach Claim.

On November 24, 2024, representatives of Party B and representatives of Revance management had a phone conversation (the “Party B Overture”) whereby Party B stated that in the event that the transaction contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement does not move forward, Party B would be interested in considering a potential transaction with Revance that would involve: (i) an investment up to $250,000,000 in Revance in exchange for a majority ownership position in Revance by Party B and (ii) a significant commercial relationship between Party B and Revance.

On December 9, 2024, representatives of Party P contacted representatives of Revance via Short Message Service (the “Party P Overture”) and stated that Party P would be interested in discussing whether there was a potential opportunity to make a counteroffer to the Buyer Parties’ Offer. Party P did not provide any further detail regarding the Party P Overture and as required under the A&R Merger Agreement, Revance did not request additional detail or engage with Party P.

Other Items:

Inability to Solicit Takeover Proposals. The A&R Merger Agreement contains covenants prohibiting Revance from soliciting other potential acquisition proposals and restricting its ability to entertain other potential acquisition proposals unless certain conditions are satisfied. The Revance Board also considered the fact that the right afforded to Crown under the A&R Merger Agreement to make adjustments to the terms and conditions of the A&R Merger Agreement based on an alternative acquisition proposal that the Revance Board determines in good faith is a Superior Proposal (as defined in the A&R Merger Agreement) may discourage other parties that might otherwise have an interest in a business combination with, or an acquisition of, Revance.
•
Termination Fee. Revance may be required to pay the $13,373,000 termination fee to Crown if the A&R Merger Agreement is terminated under certain circumstances, including by Revance to accept a Superior Proposal. The Revance Board considered the risk that the amount of the termination fee would deter potential alternative acquisition proposals.

They were in a tough spot at that point.  Had Teoxane terminated the supply contract -- which they apparently had a right to do IF their claims of Revance contract violations were accurate-- that would have given Crown a walk right and it would also be a default/acceleration of their debt.  

RVNC closed today at a paltry 0.03% discount to Crown's $3.10 buyout price. Given that the cash receipt for shareholders who tender is 1-2 months away and there is some possibility that the tender offer fails, the only logical explanation for the essentially non-existent discount is that the current share price includes some amount of better-offer vig.

The entrance into this Amendment without Crown's consent was a breach of the merger agreement and gave Crown a walk right, if refusing consent was reasonable.

So the incompetent Foley blew Crown's low-ball offer and RVNC shareholder took another 50% haircut.

Ditto !! Sold remaining 99% of holdings in various accounts to generate ( harvest) losses!!
…The remaining shares will be either tendered or ask Fidelity to mail ‘physical certs’ and nail to the ‘Wall of Shame’!!! Lesson learned, Never Trust Foley or Toby!! Sounds like the Board saved US, sadly ;(
Pun intended:)

That Revance and its financial advisors have been shopping the company for some time and getting indications of interest from multiple parties, on and off, till a few days ago. The first approach by Hildred (owner of Crown) was in November 2023. Contact with a variety of third parties has continued since then. In my view, it seems highly unlikely a topping bid appears at this point, even from Teoxane.

In the "Reasons for the Recommendation" [by the Board in favor of the tender] on page 30 there is this summary:

Strategic Alternatives. The Revance Board, with the assistance of Revance management and advisors, engaged in a comprehensive evaluation of strategic alternatives, including acquisitions of Revance or components of its business, additional capital raising, a merger, partnerships, collaborations and equity investments. During this process, Revance has engaged with over a dozen third parties across strategics and financial sponsors to determine interests in pursuing a transaction. As of August 11, 2024, Crown was the only party to submit a proposal in connection with a strategic transaction. As of the date hereof, Revance has not received any offer or proposal that constitutes a Superior Proposal or could reasonably be expected to lead to a Superior Proposal under the Original Merger Agreement.

As to the settlement with Teoxane, there is this discussion:

Prior to entering into the Sixth Amendment and the ANZ Distribution Agreement, on October 24, 2024, Revance communicated the terms of both agreements to Crown and sought their approval pursuant to the terms of the Original Merger Agreement. Crown withheld such approval, including because it was Crown’s view that, with respect to the Sixth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment (i) increased the minimum payments due to Teoxane, beyond projected sales levels for the Teoxane products, (ii) created risk that the Distribution Agreement could be terminated by Teoxane prior to completion of the remaining license term, (iii) provided operating terms more burdensome than the prior arrangement under the Distribution Agreement and (iv) with respect to the ANZ Distribution Agreement, such agreement provided Teoxane with rights for the Australian market on terms that were highly unfavorable to Revance.

The entrance into this Amendment without Crown's consent was a breach of the merger agreement and gave Crown a walk right, if refusing consent was reasonable.

Soma

What odds do you believe are that Teoxane places a competitive bid to purchase RVNC? And if so when would you expect? I know it would have to be sooner than later as shares are being acquired.

Sold 60% of my RVNC shares this morning at $3.08 to generate a tax loss. My remaining shares are in the mid $2 range so I will hold until next year, perhaps waiting to see if the Crown offer is finalized by tender.

What's your take on that narrative?

There are 17 pages of description of the background of the merger agreement, starting on page 12, including references to contacts with various third parties, Parties A through P.  

Tender offer (initial) expiration=1/13/25 with_possible_extensions_to 2/7/25:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1479290/000114036124049087/ny20039810x2_sc14d9.htm

Extensions beyond 1/13/25 will occur if too few shares (i.e. less than a majority of shares outstanding) have tendered by that date.

Soma, you are the reason I return to this board ever so often. Thank you for the detailed analysis..