The unfortunate reality here is that the share price is well...

The unfortunate reality here is that the share price is well under $2, back to November 2020 levels and prior to cardio-protection, IV formulation, and a lot of other significant news. If DCB and JC could get an offer in the near term of $1bn (assuming you mean USD) for RAC, that would be close to $10 per share. They would look like geniuses and I suspect a large number of shareholders would be very thankful and happy to see such a return on their RAC investment. Also, it could be considered low-ball only against a hypothetical future valuation, but there is a lot of time and risk that would need to be factored into those higher valuations. Most people who looked at $10 a share currently would consider it generous and given the multiple it would be very hard for the board to justify recommending against it. I'm sure there would be some who were disappointed and left dreaming of "what if" (probably myself included), but I'd be sorely tempted to take such an offer anyway.

Shareholder activisim may help, but the real solution to any "low-ball" offer scenario playing out is a higher share price. I'm not sure how we get there but whatever we're selling at the moment, the market isn't buying. For one thing, we seem to be well overdue for a lot of news that we suspect is being withheld for strategic reasons. For another thing, even though the scope of Zantrene seems to have grown significantly (perhaps well beyond the scope of a small company like RAC to fully prosecute), we've not pursued much in the way of licensing or partnerships which may help to accelerate progress and legitimise the opportunity in the eyes of the market. Even the buy-back could be used in the short term to help out in regards to this.

I would assume the reasons for these decisions are to maximise the future value of the company and IP and that may well be true, but at the sacrifice of the short to medium term value of the company, whilst adding risks due to longer execution timelines, competitors coming into the market, etc. I have the utmost respect for Dr T and all of his achievements both inside and outside of RAC, but that success (as well as his insight into Zantrene) gives him a totally different risk profile to the average shareholder, who might prefer to see a more definitive returns in the short to medium term (even if they end up being lower than some of the theoretical values we see bandied about). So just speculation, but it may be Dr T would prefer that we keep our cards close to our chest for longer while others on the board prefer a change of strategy in this regard. Of course this may be totally incorrect also. But either way I think I'd be happy to see a change of approach.

Somewhat ironically, taking some actions to more definitely demonstrate the value and legitimise the opportunity of Zantrene may reduce the long term value of the company to any prospective acquirer, but it may also increase the price they end up paying for it.