Member Info for Alwaysraining

Thanks….🤞for Thursday

Presumably if the results will/could have a market impact they would have to RNS before or at same time as poster?

Realised post should have said ‘grant options’ rather than ‘create’. They could pass the resolutions at AGM but not grant the options until later. However they have said they expect the grant to be the same day.

The list of resolutions is on the website. Note the share options information. Some of you may have much more insight than me but for what it’s worth:

i. Appears option price will be mid market on date of AGM which is positive; and

ii. I don’t believe they could actually create the options if they are in receipt of private market sensitive information.

That leads me to conclude that either there is no market sensitive information (seems unlikely given the NDA’s, methylation clock data) or they plan to make such information public prior to the AGM. That would tally with the LinkedIn post re what is to happen in June.

Hopefully all positive

Going by the articles it looks like the AGM has to be by end of June and minimum 14 days notice given - if that’s correct and adhered to then notice should be given in next 2 weeks

That’s helpful- I was sceptical about it being a more junior employee but given the figures below it is entirely possible

I have a query re the RNS. Insider information rules cover warrants/options so far as I know. If FAB are in the middle of negotiations with NCI ( or a deal is agreed but awaiting NIH approval), surely that would be market sensitive information? It may be different if the option is due to expire and has to be exercised or lost. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Not sure if I’m missing something or if there is an error on the linked in post but there is an ACVIM June congress running 10-13 June in Seattle (not Boston). I assume this is the event that was being referred to? If so, hopefully that RNS will drop next week or early week after

Logic would say yes. I would imagine they would have to issue RNS beforehand if they were disclosing it at the event. Equally, you would think it would be a bit of a damp squib of an event if they didn’t have the data available to disclose.

PSC obligations are complicated but from memory they don’t apply to companies listed on the main exchanges (they were originally designed for private companies but then extended to aim and some other markets).

Still not sure, even with disclosure, that insiders would be able to deal in this period. However if they did then another explanation could be employment related taxes. If the warrants are deemed employment related then income tax could be payable on the spread (difference between market value and price paid). If you were in that position and thought MV would increase significantly you would likely want to limit the income tax you’d pay - which would likely be at a much higher rate than CGT.

Could be completely wrong!

That’s really helpful thanks

Porter I agree entirely with your comment re quality of conversations on this board. Many times higher than any other board I’ve read.

One query I have for folks generally on methylation clock data (which may be obvious to most of you, but not me). I had been frustrated at the delay in producing it (pessimistic side of me was concerned that they were delayed in obtaining data or that it was negative). Is it though more likely that they have the data but have not disclosed it (which they otherwise may have to) because of the negotiations they are in with Tier1 cps etc. if so, is it likely that we may not see the results until they are much closer to completing licensing agr (which could potentially be after the study has completed in July?)

It isn’t easy trying to second guess what’s happening. The RNS felt as though they were wanting to get the message out that there is continued engagement with NCI without saying anything more. I still think an NCI deal will be key to unlocking value. What we do know about the NCI situation is that it is 2 stage. There needs to be a deal agreed with NCI and it needs regulatory approval. If negotiations had broken down then the RNS doesn’t really make much sense. The assumption is therefore that they are still in one of the 2 stages . In either stage there may be confidentiality provisions preventing them from disclosing any information re the negotiations. In short, we don’t really know what is going on other than a potential deal with NCI still seems a live possibility which is positive rather than negative

Not wanting to jump on bandwagon but just a quick thanks to pickedpeck - these posts are really well written, balanced and helpful.

I appreciate that the message is a positive one. However, the previous RNS suggested data would be available within 2 months. This RNS implies that such data will be some time in coming. It isn’t the first time they have stated/indicated something in a RNS and then failed to follow up in subsequent RNS.

The wording re potential partners is vague at best. I am positive about GENF’s future. However, I do think the communication with shareholders leaves a lot to be desired- there’s a sense that either they have forgotten what they previously said or think no one will notice. Not surprised the SP has fallen (though that could equally be a reaction to yesterday’s tax year related climb)

I’m in the same boat (the random multiple buys of just under £500 each just after 8 were mine - couldn’t order in bigger chunks) I’m selling/planning on selling down a few £K every couple days from GIA and transferring to ISA to minimise the risk of something happening in the meantime. Hoping it will be next week before news drops and the surge in price today is new tax year/ isa related!

Agree with Acuere. There seems to be a view that no announcement will be made until NIH approval is obtained. Given the timescales for negotiation of commercial terms with NCI, lawyers agreeing wording of contract and NIH approval times, I would have thought mid April onwards is the earliest that would happen.

As for other contracts I don’t think anyone can reasonably conclude anything for certain. It could be due to lack of interest. It could also be (i) protracted negotiations (ii) pharma wanting to see a deal in place with NCI before committing (iii) FAB believing they can negotiate better terms once a deal with NCI is announced and delaying other deals in the meantime or (iv) any number of possibilities that I haven’t thought of!

DYOR

Less dilutive than I was anticipating. Was wondering at what point Gad would invest. Good to see.

Gt/Evman thanks that’s helpful background