The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Does anyone remember Calculus using Twitter to voice their discontent with Scancell?
@ray - agreed. Given the size of the raise and the dilution that entailed, I think we are entitled to a better explanation from the BoD around the strategy going forward. The presentation should have been ahead of the GM not the AGM.
@Chester - also agreed that it is vital that we get Moditope into the clinic and find out if it really is the blockbuster that it purports to be. But again, this is not the first raise with that same stated ambition.
I do strongly believe that SCLP need to focus on getting these trials underway ASAP.
It's unfortunate that we are being asked to vote before we see the AGM presentation due out on 9th Nov.
This presentation may answer at least some of the questions of how the extra money will be spent.
I am probably going to vote to pass the resolution just to help remove a contentious issue.
Then its a matter of trusting the company to spend the money wisely with definite aims of closing deals and producing a lot more trial data before the cash runs out.
Plan A (with the extra cash) and Plan B (without the extra cash) should have been visible to us.
Konar, hard to find fault with your post. Does the CLNs (if passed) give us a set time frame out of this... after all the false starts and dilution you referenced to ?
SCLP can't promise Redmile "jam tomorrow" and not deliver. I see funding the company now as a binary bet with finally a set timeframe to deliver and no dilution for the next two years. Only for this reason will I vote in favour.
What is the best outcome for us private investors ?
I would say 'get as many platforms into the clinic as soon as possible'.
We know that if MODI1 works in a human trial as well as it has done in humanised mouse models and donate human blood samples, then it will be a blockbuster drug. Why on earth would we want to wait.
Two years is more than enough time to prove the science works. Obviously we then move to Phase 11 and Phase 111 trials but we will not be doing those on our own.
Maybe a huge buy out with complete Phase 1 data. Pay the loan notes off then.
Chester.
Agree Konar, SCLP need to explain more on how the money will be spent
SCIB1 trial - x1
Modi1 trial - x2
Covidity not provided by gov - x3
SCIB2 (if it comes back to SCLP) - x4
Avidimab/Gylcans extra research/trials - x5
Modi2 development and trial - x6
others - x7
It wouldn't have harmed their cause to give some rough figures
I didn't vote, and i am still not convinced i should vote in favour.
One of my biggest frustrations with this company, that i have expressed many times before, is the amount of money they have raised with the same stated ambition. This will be the 4th time they have raised money to fund the SCIB1 trials and they still have not happened. When invested in Scancell the shares in issue would have resulted in return of £2.45 if the company sold for 1 Billion. Following this proposed raise it will be just over £1.
For me, Scancell needed to do a much better job of explaining why, all of a sudden, they needed to raise all this extra money, and not just roll out the same old "We need this money to advance the trials to raise the value for shareholders"
SK. Once again abuse. Do you ever learn? ATB
So according to my maths
If everybody voted instead of 59%
Then if Vulpes (if it is Vulpes) again votes against
Then they would need an extra 9.7% to again defeat the resolution
To achieve this more than 11.4% of the remaining shares would have to vote against.
Conversely 89.6 or more of remaining shares voting for would pass the resolution
Berm. Well that may or may not be the case. But either way there is time now. This is a simple issue. What do LHT's prefer progress on multiply fronts (something SCLP have not been able to do previously) or slow progress on some fronts. Now is the time for all PI's to have a say on that question. Clearly an iis has a different view currently but I know what view I have and that's why I had already taken the time to vote. Just didn't pick up on the deadline. ATB
The deadline for submission of completed Forms of Proxy to the Company's Registrars, SLC Registrars, and receipt of electronic proxy appointments via the CREST system has been extended to 10:00 a.m. on 3 November 2020
I'm about to find out out the process for IG to submit proxy votes. In this, the smaller holders voting is as important as the big institutional holders.
Frankly right now, I'm more concerned about having the resolution blocked than the 2 year CLN. I think it is far better to get the capital now rather than trying to raise it in the UK in the next 2 years.
Sorry that sounded rather abrupt, the point I was really trying to make was that it was quite a while ago that the posts from David Evans appeared on advfn, perhaps earlier and extra communication from Scancell might have done the trick
GF123
Unfortunately it was too late, the deadline had already gone by the time you posted.
Ok thanks barbel
Answer for Crumbs
No on your account at the top. 12 numbers beginning with 00
Is the ref number from the corporate action ?
Berm. I suggest it probably was Vulpes. Hopefully, SCLP will clarify the position. ATB
Just put my votes in via Halifax using the on line chat function from my shareholding account. Easy and fast. Just need your personal ref number and then advise them our you want to vote.
Ivy Probably best to PM me. However, I think the answers are given on BB today. It was very late. So I suspected BOD didn't have much time / notice on this particular issue to respond. ATB
Ray,
RE. your 11.06, I'm not sure we can assume that the large shareholder was Vulpes at all. The difference between getting the vote approved was a maximum of just under 22m shares. Calculus alone hold just under 50m and I'm sure if they voted against, other large holders would have been voting with them. It may well be that Vulpes converted their CLNs to maximise their firepower in voting in favour.
Violindog. Yes as I suggested yesterday PI's can also help sclp move forward. Clearly this is a good thing for sclp so make sure you vote. I doubt its much that's needed to get the resolution across the line. ATB.
Whoever it is, I would love to know the reasons for the vote against the resolution.
I did not vote, but would happily do so now to get the resolution through, but ONLY if I am sure it is the right thing.
The money on offer to the company looks great in theory, but someone who is a lot closer to the top than all us PIs, and who have infinitely more experience investing than me, have decided it is not as good as it appears. I would love to know why.
I must admit, although the £17.9m should be great for the company, I am a bit uncomfortable about one shareholder becoming so influential. After all, such a big cash raise did take us all by surprise so soon after the previous one, and we are not entirely sure what it is all needed for.
Happy to use my small vote, but don't want to blindly help a resolution through that ultimately comes back to bite me on the bottom.
Any thoughts are very welcome.
Are Vulpes trying to stymie a lowball takeover?
Me too Crumbs. I have 1m shares in an HL Sipp. Any idea how I go about making my votes count?