Member Info for Bermudashorts

Matt,

If you're referring to the first milestone payment for SC129 (the first of the mAbs licensed by Genmab) then according to Trinity Delta it's likely to be £2.5m.

From memory, I think you're right in that Lindy did say in one interview that the size of the second deal was likely to be similar to the first and indeed that does seem to have been the case.

The interesting question now is whether the first milestone payment will be paid to Scancell or Glymab Therapeutics and was the timing of the launch of GT influenced by the likely timing of this payment?

GF123

Thanks for clarifying.

We all interpret things differently of course but when discussing commercially sensitive valuations IMO he was referring either to the valuation for a funding round or a potential deal or both. They clearly do intend to take SC134 into the clinic and obviously have ongoing running costs for staff, their share of lab/office space and all the ususal day to day running costs of any business. All of those need separating out and to be paid for presumably by a funding round.

I have to admit that I have always been against splitting off glymab into a new company for a whole host of reasons. I understand the rationale behind it, particularly in the current climate and without being privy to the conversations Scancell have had with Genmab, Redmile, Vulpes and other funds I think it's impossible to make any judgement calls.

By the way, I contacted Phil L'Huillier to ask about Avidimab and where that sits as both vaccines and mAbs use it. Fortunately the IP for avidimab enhanced vaccines and glymabs are at product level so each will simply either stay with SCLP or go to the new company although I'm not sure whether there is also a general avidimab patent. He did confirm though that there will be some IP that is shared by both companies, in which case one (presumably Glymab Therapeutics) will have to license from the other.

GF123

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're suggesting that the new company would make a payment to Scancell to transfer the IP for the mAbs?

Courtesy of another shareholder (thank you), Lindy Durrant has now been added to list of directors for Glymab Therapeutics - should think so too!

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/16538942/officers

Ruck,

FWIW in answer to your question, no, not particuarly. Scancell would not have gone public with this unless they'd checked out all legalities and implications. Redmile and Vulpes have a seat on the board and presumably must therefore be in favour too. Once the company is set up, the fact that 2 products are already licensed to Genmab wouldn't preclude a sale to another party so although Genmab would be the obvious candidate, we shouldn't rule out others.

As with everything, there are potential advantages and risks and am looking forward to some clarifcation from Scancell on the rationale behind this decision and the strategy going forwards. I'm assuming they want to do a phase 1/2 for SC134 which will require funding. Could be offset (at least partly) but any milestones for the Genmab licensed mAbs and is this something they want to get in place before any milestones are paid by Genmab (assuming they will be)? Either way I'm sure they'll have no problems with raising funds for the new company and of course that will mean dilution but that's going to be the case no matter where the IP is held. The real questions for me are how they will run the companies, how separate they'll be, how they'll allocate costs and resources and avoid any conflicts of pressures on management focus and any knock on impact on funding for the parent company? Or in reality do they plan to carry on very much as they are now and this is simply a paperwork and funding exercise?

All should hopefully clarified in forthcoming presentation.

CW

No, not a mistake. His name appears twice because in addition to being a director he is also the Company Secretary. So same person performing two roles both of which must be listed.

So following on from my last post, worth noting that Glymab Therapeutics was registered yesterday at Companies House

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/16538942/officers

There is no reason why they can't cut deals on any of the glycan mAbs as things stand so why split them out?

1) Funding - much easier to attract funding for a hot and proven area such as ADCs and for a pipeline with which has already been validated as commercially attractive with 2 licensed assets. Cancer vaccines are still seen as a longer term bet and other than the HPV vaccines, there are not yet any approved vaccines. The current funding environment is difficult and they may well have investors who are keen to get involved with glycan Mabs but holding back.

2) Should they ever want to sell off the whole vaccine porfolio or the whole glymab platform it will be much cleaner.

3) Strategic fit - Scancell are very much a cancer vaccine company and rather than muddy the waters with glymab it might be administratively, financially and strategically much simpler and efficient to run as separate entities.

The important questions are how will the companies be run in terms of resourcing and structure and management focus.

MBUski-

Correct:-

' We are also progressing plans on our commitment to unlock the full potential of our innovative GlyMab® platform by establishing Glymab Therapeutics Ltd.'

The update on SCOPE study cohort 4 recruitment is a smoke screen. This is all about setting up and explaining the creation (and presumably transfer of IP) to Glymab Therapeutics which I assume will be run as an unlisted wholly owned subsidiary of Scancell.

Moonparty,

I'm not suggesting that the presentation on Wednesday is anthying other than what they say it is - ie. a corporate and clinical update. You'd hope to come away from such a presentation with a clear idea of priorities as far as pipeline is concerned which in turn of course knocks onto funding requirements next year.

Paul,

Well we already know that Scancell will require funds next year to take iSCIB1+ into phase 3 so I suppose the question would be how it changes the funding requirement and how will they prioritise the pipeline going forwards.

Looks like Scancell have been working away on their SC134 anti fucosyl-GM1 mAb. Have to stress that this is just a preprint and is currently still undergoing peer review, but new research has been published today to show that SC134 has now been developed into an antibody drug conjugate with chemo drug deruxtecan as its payload. This is the same chemo drug as AstraZeneca's blockbuster ADC Enhertu. Also Worth noting that BMS have a drug targeting fucosyl-GM1 in phase 3 trials.

Anyway here is the conclusion from the paper:-

'In summary, SC134-deruxtecan with its high specificity for FucGM1, a clinically relevant SCLC target, and its proficient in vitro and in vivo killing of SCLC, is a compelling candidate for clinical advancement. The combination of its direct target-mediated impact as well as its potential for bystander and immune effector cell mediated cytotoxicity likely all contributed to its potent in vivo tumour eradication, underscoring its potential for therapeutic benefit.'

Https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6888650/v1

I assume Scancell would be keen to take this into the clinic and perhaps we'll see some re-prioritisation of the pipeline.

Thanks Burble - yes that's the one.

Don't have time right now to go back and check and could be wrong, but weren't Scancell recruiting for Adrian Parry's replacement a few weeks ago? Seem to remember much speculation on here about whether they were advertising for an additional role and what it meant and think the consensus was that it was a replacement for AP who was obviously on the move and working his notice.

Matt,

Yes, it was Genmab and resulted in the second glycan mAb licensing deal for Scancell.

- exclusive UK commercial agreement with Superdrug

- placing with zero discount

- US National Psoriasis Foundation Seal of Recognition and inclusion in its approved product directory

Seems like a bit of a watershed moment for SBTX

CW

Thanks for the clarification. Re. Not sure I can see either Scancell or Genmab developing NIRF tracers but did post some thoughts on 8th June here re. the links between Genmab and Leiden University, Scancell and University Medical Center Utrech.

CW

Are the comments in the second half of your post (under 'adding more quivers') from an article or are they AI generated?

Think there were 6 patents in dispute and the outcome was far from certain for Curevac. Rather than unethical behaviour from BioNTech, it may be more a case of a sensible path forward allowing both companies to avoid long, drawn out and hugely expensive litigation. Given the common ground in terms of product development, perhaps much better to bite the bullet and work together to avoid years of damaging uncertainty and the inevitable distraction that would cause.

Of course if Curevac shareholders don't like it they can vote against it but I don't feel too sorry for them. Curevac have received hundreds of millions in funding, including from the German government, the US Government's DARPA, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CEPI. Even after their covid vax was dropped when it failed to make the grade in phase 3 trials, Curevac stil managed to secure a massive deal with GSK selling off the right for infectious disease vaccines. So they've not done too badly.

Matt - exactly so. No cash outlay as it's an all stock deal and neatly brings to a close the distraction and risk of the forthcoming court case.