Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video 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.
Advise and input from the likes of Dr Muller and Dr Reilly are all part of Avion´s wish to reduce the probability of failure to the minimum possible thus safeguarding their trial investment .... and..as everyone knows...with these things every detail counts even the smallest ..and I doubt Avion will want to start the trial until they feel every detail has in fact been covered
Dallo et al
I really consider that the order will be trial timelines first, possibly patents arrangements next then deals.
Possible partners will want maximum detail before making best offers-IMM will need a 'good hand' to negotiate with.
GLA
Dallo,
Whilst we may rejoice in the recent SP increase from all time lows, the road remains long.
It's been quite a while since the Sp has gone above the benchmark Price on a monthly basis for IMM to receive the full monthly payment from Landstead .
It's also very encouraging that Prof. Muller is still implicated at her ripe young age of 72.
Hopefully we will get some updates on the 'start' of the Lupus trial shortly and that IMM will sign a major commercial deal in the near future.
Blue start to the day. Lets see where we go today.
Gla
I agree, dallo. It is positive that Lanstead continue to hold. Often forgotten amongst the negativity, that similar funding was in place prior to the last phase 3 when the shares rose from circa 20p to circa 180p, and many profited despite the doomsayers. Lanstead were the key player then too. Also, as you mention, the current share price buoyancy will increase the cash inflows from the agreement. ATB
The disconnected from what we have and our mcap shows that we are truely undervalued.
They will want to see it through....
At the AGM the lead science professionals made it clear that Prof Muller was in frequent contact with them-at least weekly.
This bodes well as does Dr Reilly's presence on main board.
GLA
Dallo;
Another valuable post from you about the scientific contribution Prof Sylvane Muller to IMM's principal drug asset, peptide platform P140.
It's her close involvement with IMM as inventor of P140 and Lupuzor, and her eminence in European science that first persuaded to invest in IMM in 2011. her continued close association also keeps me onboard.
As we know Professor Sylviane Muller , the inventor of Lupuzor, is according to the Immupharma website a key collaborator in the current trials for the drug.
She was awarded France's Legion d'honneur , the highest accolade in France in 2021 and there is a photo of the two Tims at the ceremony with her.
She is currently the Chair of Therapeutic Immunology at Strasbourg University and on the Board of France's
National Science Council among other prestigious positions.
Apparently she has worked on the reformulated Lupuzor drug following the extensive FDA discussions and in light of the incredible progress made over the past 5 years in Peptide drug technology.
Great that she is still on board imho.
It will come good in your lifetime
2024 has to be the year... We live in hope!
For our testing co to give an update but I doubt whether it would be made public anyway. Holding for the Lupuzor approval and with it the mega bagger! Hope it happens in my lifetime!!
Holding much better today
It is interesting that Lanstead hasn't been selling since it announced its revised holding of 15.89% on the 28th December 2023.
It is required to notify if its holding goes below 15% under Stock Exchange rules so it appears content to hold for now .
Obviously any further increases in the Immupharma SP means more Lanstead cash into the business as per the Subscription Agreement.
The issue of the warrants is also interesting.
Now if only management can provide the market with some positive news on commercial deals and the Lupuzor trial timelines , we would be on our way.
Fingers crossed for timely newsflow in the coming weeks.
ATB
They are putting buyers off with the spread
It does feel that Tim and Co are serious about adding substantial shareholder value and keeping us regularly up to date will help in that journey.
Lets hope this is the real deal.
Gla
Leaving out the % royalties, you put a figure of 50/50.
How do you know?
Just what 50% ownership CNRS entitled to? Equal say to who IMM allowed to do licencing deal with? Equal share of all IMM future revenues? Equal say what indications should IMM allowed to work on?
Remember you said 50/50. As I said before, you can't put a figure on it.
Supermobileman ,
Once AGAIN, i never said anything about the % of royalties so please don't put words in my moutb !
I did say on numerous occasions today NOT to confuse the Ownership of the IP with the % of royalties due to the CNRS from any revenues !
I also Said, " As far as i know, it's 50/50 OWnership of the patents "
If i am wrong, which IS of course possible , i will of course let thé board know ..
'shared jointly by CNRS' does not mean 50/50 , 75/25, 80/20 or whatever. You don't know. You can't put a percentage figure on it.
What I can say is CNRS are entitled to 12% of Immupharma's income derived form Lupuzor royalty sales (including upfront payments, milestone payments though not 100% sure on this). The 50/50 patent jointly shared did not equate to 50/50 split in income entitlement if its really that relevant.
There was nothing misleading in my message of this morning .
The CNRS are still Joint Owners of the IP /patents ...
The fact that they granted exclusive commercial rights to IMM doesn't change that fact..
IMM still needs to collaborate/negociate/ implicate/ the CNRS in any Patent strategy, Is and was the essence of my post this morning
I cannot see what you refer to as misleading or being badly researched or whatever else..
Cauldstream7,
Did you read this part ?
The patents and intellectual property rights to the full Peptide programme are shared jointly by CNRS and Immupharma France SA , a 100% subsidiary of Immupharma plc.
In light of your 'new' found knowledge, do you stand bye Your comment ?
"I don't think you are in a position to lecture people on doing their own research to check on the truth of your unchecked and unresearched statements such as your latest on CNRS and IMM"
Whatever..
Mr nolupus - in your first post this morning you agreed about the lack of detail in the RNS, and then went on to assert that immupharma are only one of the joint IP holders, while missing out obvious detail and context. You now concede that the CNRS handed over license rights many years ago, since when immupharma have paid to develop the product and consequently own the vast majority of the IP. Any suggestion that this IP is jointly and materially shared with the CNRS is highly misleading. I agree this has been a waste of time and energy, but I do not appear to be alone in believing that you are the main culprit around here. ATB
Dallo
Quite brilliant, informative and relevant posts delivered in a measured way.
Thanks.
GLA
Nolupus and Wigwammer:
Instead of trying to sort out your quarrel, why don't you read today's posts from Dallo. All the information you needed is contained in them.
Wigwammer,
I am trying to be polite but you are being an as.h.le
When you were complaining this morning that IMM had no or Limited IP protection and therefore no strategy ..
I replied to you that IMM were not alone in deciding on patent protection as they are only Co owners ..
Now , just do your own research before throwing stones !
What a waste of Time and energy