Member Info for AB124

Chelsea7

I have seen that you have been intimating that there will be a buyer for Vuples' holding soon or at some stage.
If Vulpes built a substantial holding and the BoD were delighted that they did so, doesn't that worry you a little?
Surely it is unusual for a Fund Manager to have a fit of pique when hard cash is at stake, and certainly I remember that they had done something like seven years due diligence, and that was held up as an absolute cast iron reason for accepting that they had a massive inside knowledge of Scancell.
Now some are saying (and you included) that they are the dissenters and also that their Holding will be up for sale. As you have said on several occsions that their holding will be snapped up could you elaborate on that? The reason I ask is that the question od emails from the BoD to some investors has cropped up on several occasions and as you have been very confident of mentioning the likely fate of Vulpes' holding in the Company.
I do wonder whether that sort of information might be considered to be Inside Information which really all Shareholders should be made aware of, and that should be published, and importantlybefore the final vote is cast.
I have thought about the implications of this, and if Vulpes are indeed the dissenter, and if their stake is acquired, and if it can be shown that information on this has been imparted to some and not all shareholders there's a bit of a problem being set up for the BoD.
All of what I've stated above assumes that Vulpes is the dissenter in the BoD, I am unaware of the veracity of that, so as you can see, there's a great many assumptions here, but you seem to be very confident of several things which are completely unverifiable to any shareholder simply reading the RNS but you have posted so many times that it looks like a fact now.

RuckRover
Maybe the increased amount is simply a sign of Good Faith from Redmile should there have been a further raising of a further part of a structured fundraising plan when the share price reached predetermined levels. As the last raise was very close to the first tranche, and given the speed of the attainment of the Company Broker's then (original) target level, maybe the division in the BoD ocurred as the raise arrived way before they expected it. As a sign of good faith perhaps Redmile were prepared to release a larger proportion of the available long term funding in order (not to exert control) but tto demonstrate their commitment. Let's face it, if your investment is opposed by another part of the BoD you might be prepered to flex muscles demonstrating the relative facilites you can commit in comparison to an objector. This sort of thing can easily occur if it's felt that there is a potential problem further down the line, in other words simply show your teeth and force a showdown.
Sadly I have no reason to say this is actually the case, but it is a reasonable possibilty, and the only loser in such a case would be the Naysayer who will not make their point to the shareholders.

Crumbs,
Fair enough, Scancell do provide the information you've outlined, but they are legally obliged to do so.
How much information (Data) has the Company (via the BoD) provided on the various platforms in development on each raise in say the last four years?
They are not complete paragons of virtue from a shareholder viewpoint are they?

Douve87
I have sympathy with your comments on Data, but Scancell has no Current data on (Particularly Moditope of any significant variety). I think that what is needed to maximise IP value is significant, fresh, up to the minute Data on where the various developments are and then (and only then) can the assets of the company come firmly into play. To achieve that costs a great deal of money. That money is available, BUT for some unknown reason the BOD is divided. It would be helpful if the naysayer/s would step up to the plate tell the shareholders what their problem is. I find it difficult to make a value judgement without knowing both sides. So rather than a resoned, informed judgement we are being asked to decide without all the information. In that situation do we simply say NO and then have our US backer possibly walk away or commit no further funds than already invested, or do we accept the cash available and hope that the BOD will somehow change from the history we know about and get real and effective development underway? Don't see much of a problem really, it seems a vote yes gives shareholders a chance, a vote no hands effective control of Scancell to those who seek to disrupt the progress whislt staying in the shadows and simply refusing to put their case up for consideration. It's a painful situation to be confronted by, but I'm not prepared to put my investment in the hands of those who want to disrupt a major cash injection but won't say why.

Botski
Not that I am a seller at this level, but perhaps fear (the other end of the spectrum from greed)?

LL What would unite us?
Probably a more tolerant view of others concerns and a general attempt not to be so partisan.
that might work. :-)

Chelsea 7 you did ask me,
AB, ask yourself a question, why would Vulpes not welcome Redmiles investment???
I set out why earlier. Redmile played a better game than Vulpes. They swallowed Vulpes control and diluted them out of sight. Sadly they did that with the agreement of our BOD. The vote (if it was Vulpes against) demonstrates precisely why the no voter did not welcome Redmile, even though the BOD did. I see little room for a happy coexistence of the pair of them once the No Voter is beaten. I see a potential problem with a big share overhang an inabilty of Redmile's to buy them out directly.

Chelsea7
Does your response mean that you don't see any problem with the handling of the current funding?

Chelsea7
Thankyou for your reply. Do you see no problems with Scancell's handling of their funding vis a vis the conflict now apparent between two major investors?

Chelsea7.
Sadly the BOD are the people who allowed this to happen. I see many many times over the years the rationale that everything will turn out all right in the end.
This situation is crazy. They have an investor who stumps up cash when the shares are on the floor and then invite a much larger fish in who can swallow the first investor whole. that is what's happened, simple as that. the first investor cuts up against the second who has diluted the first out of sight (with the BODs) aquiesence.
How did this happen? Now we have a large block of shares which will potentially hang over the market while the company scrabbles for data which so far has yet to be forthcoming.
I applaud your loyalty C7, but I suggest you look at the current situation and have a think about how it was allowed to arise. These are the people who you think will progress the company for our benefit?
Looks to me like Redmile holds ALL the cards now.... Hope they are as benevolent as you suggest they are. Do you really believe that Vulpes introduced them to Scancell as a Plan B was it? Hopefully they have a partner ho can buy out Vulpes... or something similar. I'm sure there are some others who are not quite as forgiving ....
Maybe?

I am now really concerned about the BoD's ability to negotiate multi deals across multi platforms since they cannot seemingly welcome significant investors to the party whilst keeping all major Holders on side.
This is a massive failure of Corporate acumen and really should never have been allowed to happen. Perhaps this is the reason Scancell have never yet closed a deal. Whoever voted against has a significant shreholding which will cast a shadow over the SP unless a deal can be done to transfer the holding to a new investor r investors without acrimony.
It will be interesting to see who is going to be the sacrificial lamb in this fiasco. certainly it is necessary to demonstrate to the world that the architect of today's events will pay the price for such a demonstrable lack of vision.
I will want to see what the BOD say is the way forward before anyone gets my vote.

It seems to me that Vulpes' conversion of their CLNs gives them flexibility to do what they wish with their entire investment in Scancell.
They consolidate their voting rights, move from an illiquid asset and have a freely transferable shareholding which can be moved to any fund they maintain present or future.
Whether it's significant at this stage only time will tell.

Sometimes you read a post that tells you something you didn't know. Violindog yours is one of them. I always suspected the NHS was a mess (for whatever reason) but your message is scary. Do you think a dose of competent management would be helpful, or has the rot set in too far?

RuckRover
I doubt Halifax is one of the earlier ones. From history I'd guess at one of the last...
Having said that, as i mentioned in my earlier post a timely reminder from you so hope it has jogged anyone who might have forgotten... :-)
At least anyone who had forgotten will allow others to increase their own holding through applied for extras so all would not be lost for Scancell.
Until Wednesady then when we find out how the allocations went. :-)

Ruck Rover
My input was the actual closing date for application forms to be with the Company (which the Platforms or Nominee companies will have to achieve), not an individual Platform deadline.
It means that tomorrow morning or whatever any platform's deadline is will not be relevant to the times the Company needs to have the info..... IE any certificated (not Platform or Nominee Company) holders.
Your warning is timely but I suspect many will have already missed the boat if they've not observed or advised in terms of their Platforms' Corporate Action requirements.

Chelsea7
i think the Open Offer last date for acceptance is 11am on Wednesday 28th October.

WeTookPelham
I would imagine that a timeline indicator would be two years if the CLNs are any clue.
Given the likely situation in place should the conversion be excercised I would say that possibly represents the endgame marker (should nothing have ocurred previous to that which would make such an excercise irrelevant (or impractical).
I can't imagine Redmile not taking any profits along the way should such profit taking be available or apprpriate.

LL, yes all their clients shareholdings will be in their Crest account.
Your platform will have a record of your shareholding so (in theory) if you want to attend an AGM they need to issue you with a letter confirming your shareholding hence your entitlement to be at the AGM of Scancell. So are you telling me that IG want £100 to provide you with that letter or authority? That seems massively expensive. or do they think you want something else?

Chester,
Does that mean anyone can join in or do we need proof of shareownership. And if the AGM is online maybe the attendance could be a great many more than 13?

So what are they charging you for? Noone can charge a registered holder with a share certificate to attend, so what is the charge specifically for?