We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Jace / LB,
Nominee account (s)
I posted the following around 31/05/23 when i queried his disappearance from the significant holders list.
Shareholders are responsible for providing TR!'s when their holding meets the requirements.
The significant shareholder page on the website reflects the shareholder register.i.e. the legal owners of the shares, including nominees. TR!'s are different in that they reflect beneficial ownership, or more accurately, control of voting rights.
We can only go on the register itself in listing the significant shareholders, unless we are 100% sure of the relevant nominee position. To do anything different, would include double counting .
For example, with Mr Miller, we don't know which different nominees he holds his shares in.
Neil
That was my thoughts LB. I do wonder if we have holders being deducted or included in nominee accounts as per my post yesterday...
Anyone know why this Miller fella doesn't appear on the significant shareholders list?
https://cizzlebiotechnology.com/significant-shareholders/
With his holding and individual TR1 he should be listed there between Dr Dawn and Interactive
Maybe holding in a nominated account?
ATB LB
Ps NFX' demise nowt to do with Mr Miller - just a really poor company. They're still at it now. Totally useless
Only company I know where every single person in the company resigned, then the CEO has moved back in!
It is THAT Alan Miller.
And I could tell you a tale about Nuformix plc , Alan Miller, ( and ex Nuformix Chair - now Conduit CEO David Tapolczay, ex Nuformix CSO, now Conduit CSO Joanne Holland, a substantial "leaked " exaggerated article in the TIMES, and the subsequent mass dumping of shares by Mr Miller.
All above board legally and no suggestion any of the above leaked anything or did anything wrong
But doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that all these personnel seem to find their way into associated companies. And Tim Metcalfe represents NFX and Ciz.
It's just one of those areas where everyone knows each other.
If you mention the above on the Nuformix Board, there won't be too many smiles.
14p to 0.2p
This is the real Alan Miller I am thinking of ?? I wonder if Gina got a few too u dear the threshold ?
You are maybe right Jace, some of these small firms do end up being forced to chase holders for TR1s, but an investor like him should know his rules and in any case why release before he hit 5 or dropped to 4, no need. We all need to go figure, or just see it as a bit of chaos.
No Hog - it wasn't needed. Its a funny one.
I do wonder if the company is reaching out to update the shareholders register.
I also wonder if some of these large holders also hold on platforms that have reportable holdings and someone does the math if they are to update.
That's correct, we don't actually know when he got them and can only assume unless someone knows him or he could say on here.
I think there are more holdings RNS to follow……
A smaller percentage of an enlarged and reduced in value total is the way I see it. I’m taking it as ‘good’ but unsure why it was released as it is not required under the rules is it?
Got it thanks. I guess what's unclear is when Alan Miller got the additional 2M shares, might have been part of the placing or bought slowly over the past 2 years on the open market.
It's definitely positive news then as shows confidence.
Your calcs (not calls) - I hate autocorrect
Hi Daz - your calls omit the other raises we've had between the events noted by Cymru.
If you can backtrack to previous totals for shares in issue you might be able to see what was in issue exactly in Sept 22.
Holdings RNS Sept 2022 had Miller holding nearly 4.73% being just shy of 15Million shares
Todays Holding RNS has him holding nearly 4.25% holding just shy of 17Million shares
As below
2022 RNS Resulting situation on the date on which threshold was crossed or reached
Percent 4.73
Shares 14858844
Resulting situation on the date on which threshold was crossed or reached
Percent 4.25
Shares 16858844
So 2 Million share increase
Jace86 - not sure how you are getting increase in 2M shares unless I have misread something.
I'm reading his previous holdings were 4.73%, i.e. prior to the raise of ~31M shares (so total prior to raise being ~365M shares). 4.73% of 365M shares is ~17.3M shares.
The RNS states that it is now reduced to 4.25% of total of ~396M, ~16.8M shares. That's a reduction in shares unless I have calculated it against the wrong total for previous holdings?
I suppose it tells us that Mr Miller maintains his confidence in the future of the company....
Technically didn't need to publish it. No meaningful change in percentage held.
Increased holdings by 2m.
Decreased holdings due to increase of shares in issue.
Hardly worth the cost of publication!
Https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CIZ/holdings-in-company-225hfcfo7b5a6a5.html
Should drop before the end of next week?
2 Apr 24 RNS: 'Cizzle will receive an up-front payment of US$100,000 within 30 days as a non-refundable fee to grant BIO an exclusive negotiating period of 120 days'
I understand that receipt of the $100k fee will be announced by the co.
I have also noted that the increase in shares in issue following the placing means that some holders may drop below the incremental 1% thresholds, which should trigger TR1 report.
At present the company have received no notices from affected holders, but as soon as the registrar issues the updated scheduled register to the company, the website should be updated to reflect any changes if any.
Neil
FAO Neil and Lovelyboy.
Fundraising:
The fact that existing and new investors have the confidence @2p is a good sign.
Neil, I would have thought , being a high value investor, that you were asked by Broker to take part in this? (That's usually the case)
But taking that logic, existing investors are already convinced - so would naturally take up the offer (although a better deal may have been out on the open market)
I am taking it that's some new investors did see long-term benefits here and maybe were privy to more data/assurances.
However - the pattern of selling beforehand suggests people knew of this fundraise - and were either forward selling or selling presently held stock, knowing the fundraise was coming.
Is that confidence? And is there a TR1? Maybe no one has tripped the threshold.
Still seems that , with the exception of those on this board, only Mr Lang has bought big.
To restate , I think on balance the fundraise was a positive indicator.
However, inter alia , the shock raise was one of several reasons I'm less than convinced by AS and unhappy with their public announcements.
The 120 day "negotiating" period is open to interpretation both to the positive and negative.
I've taken a good 4/5 of my money out. Will definitely be leaving some in, but before investing more I'm going to wait until this MOU turns into a hard contract.
Cheers all, TT
Further to the conversation, even though the wording in the last RNS may suggest not, I do wonder whether the 120-day negotiating period is a deliberate timeframe chosen by those in the US. Is it inside this period that they believe the core data and results of our first commercial test in a clinical trial setting will be determined?
I don't see the test performing badly compared to preliminary data by the way and I'm sure those in the US don't and are privy to such info in the routine research etc that Cizzle do, but as you would expect they would need a period as to which back out of any agreements in a worse case scenario.
Very confident going forward here.
Evening LB great to hear from you again.
Thanks for the reply. That is exactly the way i saw it, but wanted to see if anyone else perceived it that way.
As your reply, my thoughts were that maybe they wanted to keep the investment more "in house" with existing investors. The "new investors" could possibly be already known/connected in some way, which would go someway (in my mind at least) to keeping more close ties, rather than just an investment fund.
Either way, they clearly, saw or were aware of something that gave them the confidence to invest. Particularly as the placing was not underwritten - they didn't require an underwriter, as they already knew they had takers for the shares.
I agree, i think the cancellation of E3 will take place, because if MOU is converted to binding contract, then by the end of July - only 3 months away - we will have just under $1million ( save for expenses) so no need at this stage for further funding. Coupled with that is the reduction in costs of approx half a million $ with BIO picking up the bill for the development/accreditation /manufacture etc, i think we are in a really good position.
Neil