Mozz quoted a proverb to the effect sometimes you just have to...

Mozz quoted a proverb to the effect sometimes you just have to wait.
For one outcome.
In our case there is the separate possibility of a deal on MPS to weigh against the unavoidable CR early next year.

Such an MPS deal would very likely reduce the eventual DCF for us in the absence of a CR, but hang on, we can't avoid a CR. So, almost ANY deal on MPS that is not just plain stupid, that covers all subsequent CRs would be a good deal, IMO.

To summarize: weigh MPS versus no further need for a CR.

We have around 300m shares issued. My guess is $120m more cash will more than cover expenses all the way through to registration of iPPS.

Put a sign up! MPS for the bargain price of $150m. Settle for the $120m or whatever it is that covers all required expenses by a comfortable margin.

Then you can bargain at a seller's price on any distribution-based iPPS deal, in 2025.

Another CR like the last two, running short of cash, is a giveaway and retail shareholders are diluted again.
If you have another number in mind for MPS, dial it into how it affects the next CR.
(I know some have imagined very large numbers for MPS, if they were real in the eyes of potential buyers, a deal would have been done by now*)

As far as i can tell any deal on MPS that covers the remainder of financing iPPS is a good deal.
Another CR with MPS unsold, and still an expense item, is not.
Let PAR Board know via Simon White at PAR.

*-or else the Board aren't good at putting greed aside in doing a DCF.

Oh and there is the OTHER option

x% of the royalties/profit on iPPS where x is less than the CR dilution. I would settle for that, or a bit of each, because that leaves us in a better position to negotiate the full value of iPPS. You only need that if there is no deal on MPS.
IMO. DYOR.