I believe that the JV arbitration is not some risky proposition,...

I believe that the JV arbitration is not some risky proposition, as the agreement in terms of "exit clauses" are well defined, and in many ways leads to a win/win scenario for Beam.

Either we acquire the profitable Zoleo revenue at a "bargain" (How much of a bargain is unknown, but my understanding is this is fixed/defined in the JVA already - or possibly more favourable if there is a "Breach" from other party - which Beam seems to be arguing there is.) or we sell our 50% stake for much more relatively speaking than we are currently juicing given the unfavourable existing USA:AUS royalty split. (Roadpost appears to be getting $1m+ royalties per month, vs Beam's $1m per year approx).

So, while there may be some dilution in the first scenario, it may be beneficial given the way the JV agreement is structured. It could be a very short payback period, and/or also have some vendor financing (via delayed payment/settlement) to lessen the impact or cash requirement. This would be a very different thing if it was some sort of court matter with unknown possibilities and unknown timeframes. Not the case here.

Given the current EV/EBITDA multiple, reasonable cash position and CF+ outlook, there seems to be little risk to sit around and wait for the outcome around July/August.