Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
Burble - your viewpoint would align to what Cossery said previously about focussing on core.
EE,
I see this in a completely different light. If you have a product which can be used for the same target but across multiple indications in infectious disease and oncology, why wouldn't you want to validate it in each of those? Not only does that give you multiple opportunities to do deals, it also means that you can offer exclusivity in one indication but not another.
So in the case of the glymab antibodies, you have a number of different avenues for doing deals and generating cash flows.
- Oncology - different indications or use in different modalities
- Infectious disease - detection or targeted treatment
- Diagnostics - highly specific antibodies are valuable in this space too
- Discovery - whilst slightly niche, antibodies can be bound to solid materials and then used to capture specific analytes in complex mixtures.
Each of these could generate deals which reduces the likelihood of us as shareholders being diluted through further raisings. So to me, I think it only natural that a company which has developed something like the glymabs to be exploring what they do.
As Lindy is a middle author in the author list, I would pretty much guarantee that LD has had limited input on this bar providing materials and possibly the odd zoom call. Where you say 'the company itself should be ENTIRELY focused on developing intellectual property and monetising it for the benefit of its shareholders.' I would think this is exactly what they are doing. They are not doing these experiments themselves, but are letting others explore what the technology can and cannot do through scientific/academic collaborations. In turn this is passively developing the IP and in turn helping drive the monetisation of the product.
@emptyend - There is annoying impression that this is the case, however you'd think Redmile and Vulpes would not allow this?
This is actually a piece I find a bit concerning as a shareholder. It renews lingering questions in my mind about whether shareholder value is front and centre in the company’s activities, or whether the company is just a bolt-on to a venture which is publicly-funded pure science, being pursued for its own sake.
Of couse there is a symbiosis here, but the company itself should be ENTIRELY focused on developing intellectual property and monetising it for the benefit of its shareholders.
I’d like to think we would get RNSs soon that prove that is the focus, and not the science alone…..
LinkedIn post from
Cathy Merry of Nottingham university
Professor of Stem Cell Glycobiology, Faculty of Medicine & Health Science
People - The University of Nottingham
This is fantastic! Really excited by the plans built up by John Heap and the team. The GlycoCell Engineering Biology Mission Hub, the GlycoWeb BBSRC sLOLA, the anti-glycan antibodies of Scancell Ltd and other glyco-connected work at University of Nottingham put us very much at the centre of of the glyco-revolution in life science, bio-medicines and diagnostics. Watch this space..
The University of Nottingham will lead a national hub that will develop vaccines, diagnostics and therapeutics, benefiting millions of people worldwide, thanks to funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
The GlycoCell Engineering Biology Mission Hub will receive £12.3 million in funding as part of an overall investment of £100m from UKRI’s Technology Missions Fund and UKRI and BBSRC’s core budgets.
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/glycocell-engineering-biology-mission-hub
"So do we know if potential suitors to Scancells mAbs portfolio are looking at the infection side of things and not just cancers?"
I would guess no in this case, but who knows.
As for Melbourne Uni, I recall that they have already done work on Scancell's glycans mAbs in the past. They seem to be great fans of Scancell and Lindy.
A similar situation exists with the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. In this case Lindy gave them Modi1 to play with, but in connection to Rheumatoid Arthritis rather than cancer.
Much appreciated RayP.
So do we know if potential suitors to Scancells mAbs portfolio are looking at the infection side of things and not just cancers?
No problem WTP
Yes, mAbs are designed to bind to a target. That target could be a cancer cell or a non-cancer cell (e.g. an infected cell).
In this case, several mAbs were used in the study, including 2 provided by Lindy:
"The panel of mAbs tested included FG27 and ch88.2 provided by Professor Lindy Durrant (Scancell UK, University of Nottingham UK), 15.101 provided by Emeritus Professor Mauro Sandrin (University of Melbourne, Australia), mu58 and mu3S193 provided by Professor Andrew Scott (ONJCRI), and 7LE, 2-25LE and LWY/1463 (Table 2) purchased from Abcam (Cambridge, UK)."
Thanks Ray, forgot to add the link.
To be honest my knowledge of mAbs is limited, didnt realise it could help with bacterial infections too? Anyone care to explain the article in laymans terms?
Here's the link
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59234-w#Sec20
Not the first time that Lindy has collaborated with Melbourne University.
"Probing the expression and adhesion of glycans involved in Helicobacter pylori infection"
Daniel Sijmons, Simon Collett, Caroline Soliman, Andrew J. Guy, Andrew M. Scott, Lindy G. Durrant, Aaron Elbourne, Anna K. Walduck & Paul A. Ramsland
"...The lectins used for immunofluorescence were Fluorescein Lectin Kit I (FLK-2100) and Fluorescein Lectin Kit II (FLK-3100) supplied by Vector laboratories. The panel of mAbs tested included FG27 and ch88.2 provided by Professor Lindy Durrant (Scancell UK, University of Nottingham UK), "
Interesting?
Link to the Todays Times article behind a paywall
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exodus-from-aim-leaves-chorus-of-questions-in-its-wake-93d0mrvjx
extracts from article that are relevant :
The problem of weak valuations is behind C4X’s decision to take the company private at a meeting on Monday. Clive Dix, 69, its chief executive and the former deputy chairman of the Covid-19 vaccine taskforce, said: “We believe we should be valued at least five times, if not ten times what we are and therefore raising money at ten times the value would be much simpler. I don’t think it’s to do with the quality of the companies and the science. I just think that the environment, it doesn’t work. There’s no liquidity.”
Redx, a cancer drug developer, are down by more than 90 per cent from their 2015 listing, despite establishing four “major” partnering deals over the past five years.
Gervais Williams, head of equities at Premier Miton Investors, a long-term proponent of smaller listed companies, said it was not surprising that some businesses were leaving Aim. “The UK is cheap, but small caps are disgustingly, absurdly cheap,” he said. “A lot of companies feel that they’re not getting value for all of the extra cost and hassle of meeting the reporting requirements of being on Aim.”
Nevertheless, he reckons a broad rally in UK-listed shares is coming, with the FTSE 100 index flirting with a record high. This, he believes, will result in a “positive virtuous spiral” that will boost smaller listed companies. “I’m more bullish now than I’ve been for 30 years.”
Xodus from Aim leaves chorus of questions in its wake
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exodus-from-aim-leaves-chorus-of-questions-in-its-wake-93d0mrvjx
The problem of weak valuations is behind C4X’s decision to take the company private at a meeting on Monday. Clive Dix, 69, its chief executive and the former deputy chairman of the Covid-19 vaccine taskforce, said: “We believe we should be valued at least five times, if not ten times what we are and therefore raising money at ten times the value would be much simpler. I don’t think it’s to do with the quality of the companies and the science. I just think that the environment, it doesn’t work. There’s no liquidity.”
Redx, a cancer drug developer, are down by more than 90 per cent from their 2015 listing, despite establishing four “major” partnering deals over the past five years.
Gervais Williams, head of equities at Premier Miton Investors, a long-term proponent of smaller listed companies, said it was not surprising that some businesses were leaving Aim. “The UK is cheap, but small caps are disgustingly, absurdly cheap,” he said. “A lot of companies feel that they’re not getting value for all of the extra cost and hassle of meeting the reporting requirements of being on Aim.”
Nevertheless, he reckons a broad rally in UK-listed shares is coming, with the FTSE 100 index flirting with a record high. This, he believes, will result in a “positive virtuous spiral” that will boost smaller listed companies. “I’m more bullish now than I’ve been for 30 years.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exodus-from-aim-leaves-chorus-of-questions-in-its-wake-93d0mrvjx
The problem of weak valuations is behind C4X’s decision to take the company private at a meeting on Monday. Clive Dix, 69, its chief executive and the former deputy chairman of the Covid-19 vaccine taskforce, said: “We believe we should be valued at least five times, if not ten times what we are and therefore raising money at ten times the value would be much simpler. I don’t think it’s to do with the quality of the companies and the science. I just think that the environment, it doesn’t work. There’s no liquidity.”
Redx, a cancer drug developer, are down by more than 90 per cent from their 2015 listing, despite establishing four “major” partnering deals over the past five years.
Gervais Williams, head of equities at Premier Miton Investors, a long-term proponent of smaller listed companies, said it was not surprising that some businesses were leaving Aim. “The UK is cheap, but small caps are disgustingly, absurdly cheap,” he said. “A lot of companies feel that they’re not getting value for all of the extra cost and hassle of meeting the reporting requirements of being on Aim.”
Nevertheless, he reckons a broad rally in UK-listed shares is coming, with the FTSE 100 index flirting with a record high. This, he believes, will result in a “positive virtuous spiral
Yes I’m sure that was it Dracula 🙄
WTP, Probably the fear of causing another drop In the SP. IMO
Excellent post @konara at 10:51.
So Scancell could likely still be in closed period as you say, and yes I wonder how many sold on that RNS?
Btw why have they not RNS'd a correction though?
Moonparty -
RG has already exercised one tranche so this is the second. I think he has approx. 600k left.
It was always obviously Goodfellow (or someone else no longer involves) and will clearly have been driven by tax-planning, to “take the taxable gain” at a time when the share price was low (and so the gain and tax on it will also be low). There will doubtless be another round very soon for 24/25.
Not impressed by an error in the published details - there is no excuse for sloppy errors re the exercise price!
Thanks jb1, so it is seems likely Richard Goodfellow has sold a million recently, unless he exercised them for a different reason than to raise money (only thing I can think of is to gift the shares to someone else?).
Would explain a lot, and as he is now retired, understandable he wants to cash some in. Reassuring it was only a million as he has a lot more options than this I think.
Johnny,
Thanks for spotting this in the first place and then finding the answer - great research.
That's a pretty epic mistake to make!
Not only is it 50% less revenue generated from the sale of the shares, but a number of people inferred from the exercise of the option that Scancell weren't in a close period. I could well imagine a number of sells went through on that basis - if I remember correctly the price dropped that day.
JB1 - thanks for sharing with the BB. Much appreciated.
On 19 March’24, I posted that Scancell Holdings had made a filing of a “Statement of capital following allotment of shares” at Companies House that day. It showed that 1,000,000 shares have been allotted at a price of 10 pence each:-
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06564638/filing-history
It did not make sense because no share options for 10 pence could be found in Scancell’s accounts. I raised the question with Scancell and they have emailed the following response:-
“I apologise that your email has not been responded to earlier.
Unfortunately, there was an error on the SH01 form filed at Companies House and the allotment price shown should have been ÂŁ0.045 not ÂŁ0.1. An amended SH01 has been submitted to Companies House and their site will be updated in due course.
The allotment related to the exercise of share options, and I’ve attached a copy of the relevant RNS.”
This is the RNS they attached:-
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SCLP/block-listing-application-to-aim-i1jcwgms4055mk9.html
So, it was Richard Goodfellow exercising another 1,000,000 of his 4.5 pence options.
'but' not 'nut' . . .
On 'PoG or PoS' thread over there, an interesting discussion between Inan and Bermuda about the timing of possible interest arising from the SCIB1 / iSCIB1+ trials.
To expand on previous comment, the thread I politely call PoG is actually, "Pot of Gold OR Pot of S*** "
Firmly the former in my view of course - nut not just yet. GLA