Member Info for AB124

LL are you referring to a charge for providing you with an authority to attend as you do not have a share certificate? this will take the form of a letter bearing the seal of the Company who manages your shareholding within your Investment Platform.

Burble,
Thanks for the reply.
I'm sure once the date and format for the AGM is known and if they fit further ideas can be discussed and considered.
I'm certain your agreement in principle is valued and appreciated by most if not all on the BB. Sounds like we will have valuable and helpful resource if all the stars align.
Thanks again for the positive response.

Ray Pointer,
Absolutely, that's why I said its a big ask. There's also the fact that it could be potentially embarrassing for a professional to be put in that position, hence asking way before doing anything. :-)

I hope my last is OK with everyone on the BB. It's a bit of a cheek just coming out with it, so sorry if I overstepped the mark. :-(

Burble,
Once we know when the AGM is due, and if you would be able to "attend" would you be prepared to be the spokeperson for the "Scientific" questions so that any logical followups to such stuff could be from someone who not only knows the science on a professional level, but also has experience in dealing with people so that nuances in replies can be identified and exapnded upon by the right questioning?
It's a big ask but maybe a useful facility for readers of the BB to have when the opportunity to question the BoD is avilable.

Crumbs I like to focus on the fact that if Cliff's Deal has been shelved for the present, then it might be felt that Scancell can benefit from further development and maybe even a more structured route to manage the asset rather than the first shape of any deal which might have been done. I think its a big positive. At least Scancell haven't grabbed at the first opportunity to get some positve cashflow which might have sent out all the wrong signals.

Chelsea7
Thanks for your kind comment, but I can only assume that the VAL BB members enjoy Marmite less than those here... Ref your 19.08.

Bunsie, not completely untrue but.....
Surely effective communication demands that the communicator doesn't alienate half of the people to whom he or she is trying to communicate. Divide and conquer? Maybe that's it, but a good communicator understands that quiet and reasoned discussion is better and much more effective than attempting to dominate everyone and everything. Even if I'm wrong that's the impression I was left with.

If I may say something about posting styles and how they affect a BB.
If as everyone seems to suggest that Inanaco, Wildforce, Burble and Bermuda Shorts are the main long term posters on the science, why is it that of the four only Inanaco is no longer here?
Each of the remaining three seem not to be excluded, but presumably can be considered as equally able to post knowledgably on the science what is the difference that means only one has been "removed"?
I don't think its about the knowledge of the science, so maybe the answer is very simple and that each of the posters listed above are in charge of their own destiny. Some survive others haven't.

RuckRover,
Your 10.15; The most balanced comment EVER on this BB?
Great Stuff! :-)

RuckRover
Wow that's impressive!! I would never had had the patience to do that!

Morning Chester.
Thanks for the response.
Yes, I agree Redmile have a great deal of money but I am certain they know exactly how much they're prepared to invest in Scancell and for how long. Their strategy for Scancell I doubt is unlikely to change. They have facilitated the production of Data over a wide selection of products and its now up to the Company to deliver that Data. I'm sure we agree on that point.
As to the timing of releases of capital I'll simply reiterate the question , would we as shareholders think that the CEO (Or BOD collectively) had done a good job if we'd allowed Redmile to raise all the money now in our coffers at the 5p level?
As to the Mabs deal it looks to me very much like the deal on offer wasn't beneficial to Scancell in a way that some further development would assist. The Mabs deal was initiated before the Redmile involvement and the original cash raise must have made a difference to Scancell's attitude to acceptance (hence the CH assertion that there was a deal (small value) in the offing). That is changed to further development. I have no idea whether the second instalment was designed to be released at 13p or not, but I guess that the second instalment was discussed (or even agreed on) in the original funding discussions with Redmile, so I still lean towards the full amount we have was part of a package discussed at the outset and is not a sudden unexpected sum thrown into the ring. We may not have seen all of the funds Redmile are prepared to commit as yet, but the answer to that I do not know. I'm sure the total facilities available have been discussed.
So we really aren't too far away from agreeing that (irrespective of the timing) Redmile's funds have assisted Scancell to move towards monetisation of the IP, whilst sending out a message to would be buyers of that IP that Scancell can no longer be seen as an easy touch for predators. But we have to put in the work now to get what the Market and Redmile undobtedly require... Data.
Hope that explains my thoughts and again thanyou for your overnight response.

Chester, in fairness to Knowlesi you did make the "Quick Buck" comment as number one on your list and irrespective of why the sale failed it was the intention to do so.
As there's no responses and as it's getting late I'll look in tomorrow and see how the debate continues.
Good night all and sleep well.

Chester, I see you still feel that the entire cash raise wasn't planned but that the current one is a new, unplanned injection of capital.
Would you have preferred that Redmile insisted that they receive payment for their Capital all in shares at the 5p level? If that had happened do you feel that Scancell's BoD would have done a good job?
Also if Redmile are the astute investors they seemingly are, why would they suddenly think that they should make a new capital injection at a price which reflects at least one Market commentator's valuation of Scancell shares? they seem not to have thought the Scancell process through if they suddenly kneejerked a massive amount of extra funds into Scancell having already had the benefit Of Vulpes advice.
Seems a little strange doesn't it?

Chester, you have certainly given it a great deal of thought. An interesting theory.

Crumbs
Not sure we can ATM. They've got the tools, now they have to use them, blamelessly.
When we get the trials underway and the when the data arrives I think we can congratulate them.
The departure from the history of delay is what must now be demonstrated.
So yes, a good start but until they use the facilities I believe the Jury's still out.

Ruck Rover Your 11.42.
"I don't take the TD value as set in stone but it does provide a value based on financial principles. "
I think you make a very good point with that sentence above.
Any accepted valuation process for shares such as is used by TD to assess Scancell carries some weight in the Market, if for no other reason they are a benchmark applied similarly to other companies in the same sector. Sadly educated guesses from non industry analysts hold little or no value. I would much prefer to see Scancell's financial situation judged against its peers much in the same way that I respect the science to be peer reviewed. Once we have a similar consideration of Scancell's prospects on both counts heading in the same direction (such as they seem to be aligning now) whilst there are no guarantees the future does look to be rather better than has been the case for years.
Scancell is a (hight risk) buy and certainly must surely rank as a component in any portfolio's biotech sector (subject to all the usual warnings).

Ruck Rover, thanks for your response... The precision isn't vital, but it is great to see we can discuss without rancour!
However we see it it looks to me like Redmile have been pretty fair to Scancell's shareholders, even though they could have diluted us substantially more at one point. I also think that the trend of cash raising points be higher raise on raise (irrespective of when the "package" was agreed) rather than lower as has been the case since 2013 sets us off in a better direction than has been the case for some years.
I believe that the onus is now fairly and squarely on the BOD to deliver. They now have a Company which is in a vastly improved state financially and market wise than has been the case for seven or eight years. All we need now are some Data Sets that the market can see and digest.
Look set fair subject to the Trials and Development being as Gold Plated or even Solid Gold as the Finances.

Ruck Rover, Sorry I was out and oly just returned. In reply to your 10.04,

" AB,
"Ruck Rover ref share in issue should the CLNs be converted I see it as 984,892,240shs.”
I see it as 979,893,071 - but we won’t fall out over 4 million!

My figure accounts for £48M raised. Did you convert the loan notes at 6.2 and not 5.5?"

I wish , and should have, posted that my figure came from the Scancell circular re the current cash raise,"

"9. Effect of the Capital Raise
Assuming completion of the Subscription and full take up of all Open Offer Shares offered under the Open
Offer, upon Second Admission, the Enlarged Share Capital is expected to be 745,499,265 Ordinary Shares.
On this basis, the New Ordinary Shares will represent approximately 15.6 per cent. of the Enlarged
Share Capital.
In the event that the Total Convertible Loan Notes are converted in full into new Ordinary Shares at their
respective conversion prices and assuming no other issue of new Ordinary Shares other than in connection
with the Capital Raise, and assuming that the Existing Convertible Loan Notes held by the Redmile Funds
are converted at the Adjusted August CLN Price, the maximum number of Ordinary Shares in issue would
be 984,892,240. "
Sorry, I used Scancell's own figures assuming they'd be OK. If they're not then they certainly need to get their act together.
Anyway i hope we don't fall out over this, it was not my intention.

Ruck Rover
Just looking at the Trinity Delta valuation post the August raise I see they NPV'd Scancell at 13.3p (11.5p fd) They also showed that the raise included "COVIDITY COVID-19 programme until non-dilutive funding or partnering support is secured." That funding has been secured FTB and so would it not be difficult to include Covid in the analysis? I wonder whether Covidity needs to be ringfenced? Since the last undil. valuation was 13.3p then the raise was at a small discount to TD's valuation and seems to be a good level for Scancell to raise more funds given that the company has always seemed to have grabbed at funding at a massive discount to the market and subsequently seen the shareprice fall. The current raise is at a level nearly three times higher than the last only a matter of weeks ago and seems to me to be a bit of a coup. I see some might disagree but I think it was a good move. Scancell has cash in the bank and a great backer with influence and a great deal of money who also seems to think an investment here is a good idea. it seems to me the BOD can now move forward rapidly and failure to do so would be a slap in the face for shareholders. Data is needed... and soon. the clock is ticking for the BOD....