Member Info for Bmhltd

5. VelosBio (ROR1 ADC, VLS-101)

• Indication: Hematologic malignancies, early expansion into solid tumors.

• Data: Early Phase 1 (n

5. VelosBio (ROR1 ADC, VLS-101)

• Indication: Hematologic malignancies, early expansion into solid tumors.

• Data: Early Phase 1 (n

5. VelosBio (ROR1 ADC, VLS-101)

• Indication: Hematologic malignancies, early expansion into solid tumors.

• Data: Early Phase 1 (n

5. VelosBio (ROR1 ADC, VLS-101)

• Indication: Hematologic malignancies, early expansion into solid tumors.

• Data: Early Phase 1 (n

Examples of mid-level CR rates being a precursor to significant acquisitions.

Faron ticks all the boxes, none the less in very high risk sample cohorts with a back-bone ready asset which is treatment agnostic and offers upside across a broad range of oncology indications:

🔹 Hematology / Oncology Examples

1. Forty Seven, Inc. (magrolimab, anti-CD47 antibody)

• Indication: High-risk MDS/AML.

• Data: In an early Phase 1b trial (~30–40 patients at time of deal), azacitidine + magrolimab showed ~30–40% CR rates in MDS and AML subsets.

• Outcome: Gilead acquired Forty Seven in 2020 for $4.9 billion.

• Rationale: Despite small N, the data suggested a differentiated mechanism and strong potential in front-line HR-MDS/AML.

2. Juno Therapeutics (CAR-T, JCAR017 / lisocabtagene maraleucel)

• Indication: Relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.

• Data: Early Phase 1/2 data (fewer than 100 patients) showed CR rates ~30–40%.

• Outcome: Celgene acquired Juno in 2018 for $9 billion.

• Rationale: Mid-percentage CR rates but with durability and a new modality (CAR-T).

3. Kite Pharma (axi-cel, CAR-T)

• Indication: Refractory aggressive NHL.

• Data: ZUMA-1 trial (n≈50 in early cohorts) showed CR ~36–40%.

• Outcome: Gilead acquired Kite in 2017 for $11.9 billion.

• Rationale: Small dataset but high unmet need, novel therapy, and durable CRs.

4. Unum Therapeutics (early ACTR platform)

• Indication: CD19+ cancers.

• Data: Small patient numbers with some CRs in the 20–30% range.

• Outcome: While not a direct high-value takeout, it entered deals with large pharma before efficacy questions arose.

5. VelosBio (ROR1 ADC, VLS-101)

• Indication: Hematologic malignancies, early expansion into solid tumors.

• Data: Early Phase 1 (n

I couldn’t care less.

If the BS and / or trolling on this board can’t stand up to facts then it probably wasn’t worth reading, in my opinion.

As we are banding insults around, try being proactive and using your brain rather than asking questions on here about various things that are easily discoverable online with the plethora of tools in today’s modern age.

It makes you look a helpless f a n n y!

7. “Banks prefer an out-licence with a higher payout and will push it through, with or without client consent.”

• That’s not how regulated advisory works. In the EU, corporate-finance advisers must act “honestly, fairly and professionally” in clients’ best interests; they can’t ram through a transaction without instructions. There isn’t a universal banker “preference”—fees can be substantial for full-company M&A, licensing, or hybrids, and the client decides the path. 

8.Out-licensing now is obviously better than raising or selling.”

• Not necessarily. Big Pharma often pays the most via whole-company takeouts when competition emerges; boards can also bridge valuation gaps with contingent value rights (CVRs) and milestone-heavy structures—tools specifically designed to avoid “opportunistic” pricing on early data (e.g., Genzyme’s CVR). The “right” path (licence vs. M&A vs. raise) depends on capital needs, risk-sharing, internal capabilities (CMC/commercial), and what bidders actually put on the table.  

9. “M&A would be seen as opportunistic by the board and wouldn’t capture the value of the lead program.”

• Boards generally run a process and test the market; if a bid is opportunistic, they can reject it or invite competing offers. In practice, competitive tension, milestones/CVRs, and staged closings are used precisely to capture pipeline value that’s not yet fully de-risked. (Again, see Genzyme; also note frequent bidding wars in the sector.) 

This isn’t a one-way street to an out-licence — M&A is very much on the table, and history shows that’s where the biggest premiums get paid

THMO,

Every poster is entitled to share their views and opinions, but please present them as such, and try and ground them in examples and facts, if possible…

1. “The board will maximise value immediately.”

• In Finland, directors’ duties are to act in the company’s and all shareholders’ interests, treat shareholders equally, and (unless the articles say otherwise) pursue profit over the long run—not “immediate” maximisation. That’s set by the Finnish Companies Act and widely summarised by Finnish corporate-law sources.  

2. “They’ve never run a Phase III, so delivering Phase III data would be new.”

• False. Faron already ran a Phase III (INTEREST) with its IV interferon-beta (Traumakine) in ARDS; results were published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine in 2018 and discussed in Faron’s own releases.  

3. “Timo has been a backstop shareholder; therefore the board won’t take value-suboptimal decisions.”

• One investor’s presence does not change directors’ legal duties (see #1). Also, while Timo Syrjälä is indeed a major holder (c.15% combined direct/indirect as disclosed), that isn’t control. It doesn’t let him dictate outcomes or guarantee any specific deal path. 

4. “An M&A trade is not feasible because the Jalkanen family/Juho want to stay in charge.”

• Desire ≠ feasibility. What matters legally is voting power and takeover rules. As of June 2025, Markku & Sirpa Jalkanen together held ~2.33% of the votes—far from a blocking stake. Under Finnish rules, a 30% holding triggers a mandatory bid; at ~90% an acquirer can squeeze out minorities. Unless the family (and aligned holders) command much larger percentages, they can’t unilaterally block a premium bid that other shareholders want. 

5. “Unsolicited bids are uncommon in biotech/pharma.”

• Also false. Some of the sector’s best-known deals began unsolicited/hostile:

• Sanofi’s unsolicited approach to Medivation (ultimately sold to Pfizer for $14B). 

• Sanofi’s hostile pursuit of Genzyme (closed with a CVR structure). 

• Roche’s hostile bid for Illumina.

6. “A creeping buy is impossible given volume.”

• “Impossible” is too strong. Finnish law allows stake-building below the 30% mandatory-offer threshold (with public flagging at set levels), so creeping is legally possible; it’s just constrained by liquidity and disclosure. On liquidity: recent data show materially higher trading on Helsinki than the forum suggests (e.g., 2025 average daily volumes in the hundreds of thousands of shares on Nasdaq Helsinki), and even London’s AIM line trades daily. Low volume slows accumulation; it doesn’t make it impossible.  

Quesera.

Let’s not completely rule something out that isn’t completely within Juho’s control. A few examples of how a takeover could play out, for example, not saying it will, but to completely rule it out lacks understanding.

1. A credible offer is made that has to be brought to shareholders and a majority vote for it, with or without the boards recommendation.

2. A tender offer is launched by the predator and they gain control of the majority of shares.

3. Creeping takeover via share accumulation.

4. Board considering a deal fair value and voting for a deal Juho might not solely recommend, the board are independent and also have a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

5. Market turmoil leading to a drying up of liquidity / capital & a sub optimal offer from a sole suitor.

And the list could be expanded.

On the solid tumour strategy, selection based on clever-1 positivity / level is surely a better way to go. Responders from the monotherapy showed responders survival 3x greater than none responders. Selecting these responders is key, and mechanistic approaches such as re-sensitising to pd-1’s and potentially attempting to have Bex initiate antigen presentation in cold tumours and opening them up to PD-1 treatment.

Agree a little more on your 3rd paragraph, but the likelihood is there will be a supply agreement with either Merck or BMS, is my best guess, unless we pay for the PD-1 ourselves, which I think unlikely and the investigator unlikely to have the funds to do this also. In an ideal world this could work. Likelihood is they would want exclusivity and we would need their funding to expand the indications and trials.

There’s potentially also scope for early European revenues via a pathway to AA or a managed access plan in the r/r population as we discuss the approval strategy with EMA and the MHRA.

This I feel could also be later acknowledged by the FDA who appear to have skirted around the issue which seems odd given the dire unmet need…, perhaps they are considering this with BTD designation.

Again all conjecture on my part…

No problem …

I don’t believe they have explicitly stated so, although they have alluded at capital markets day 2024, for example, that phase 2 data, which is now in hand, would lead to a deal size 2-3x bigger than dealing prior to that when asked the question.

However, I personally believe if we cannot get a very large upfront, milestone heavy partnership deal, or an acquisition within that ball park, then we should proceed to randomised data, such is the value that will be left on the table by not doing so, and already having the authorisation to deploy another 20m shares.

I believe the data is stand out, and unlikely by chance, given the CR rate seen for example, and strong data in both r/r and FL in a devastating disease such as HR MDS, with very high-risk profile cohorts. I think the likelihood is the data shines further as the risk profile is stratified and the true efficacy is laid bare.

I will say on this, I had suggested in my original piece that €2 eur was an absolute bottom rate I would expect to raise funds around, which should see almost instant value accretion wrt share price as the next milestone becomes highly value accretive and adequately funded.

I believe, however, that within 60 days of the EOP2 meeting, likely by the end of September in my view, given the strength of data and meeting all necessary criteria, we should receive Breakthrough Therapy Designation, which should be a major share price catalyst, enabling us to raise at a minimum of €3, likely much higher, if it plays out as I expect, the increased CR rate presented at the EOP2 meeting, more than doubling the standard of care CR rate, offers strong rationale for forming the submission in the indication line we will be conducting the phase 2/3 in - ie the Front Line.

I believe we are currently in a period of accumulation by institutions as the deal window has officially opened with an investment bank running a professional deal process, and I continue to add stock as funds become available.

These are all my own views.

If it goes the other way, and Faron feel compelled / bullied into a full acquisition, this is how I could see the valuations changing at each stage, and feel if the minimum isn’t achieved at each milestone / time point, and we would be worth at least proceeding to the point where we have the dose funding, randomised data in hand.

I wrote a long piece and had ChatGPT finesse it into a sharper piece. ChatGPT thought my views on valuation guide at the AA filing milestone time point was modest, but agreed with takover valuations at earlier milestones / time points, they also agreed with me that the most likely time point for full acquisition was following randomised data in the first dose run-in phase of the phase 2/3, likely in early 2027.

Multiple Routes to Success for Bexmarilimab in HR-MDS:

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68b340b879f48191a75f5efc9e6ff5c0

I’ve long held the view that Faron is likely a buy-out target, but am beginning to come around to the leverage I feel Faron now have following their / our knock out data in MDS both r/r and Front line, and could potentially be on the cusp of a major partnering deal if this leverage is handled correctly, which it appears to be, at a fair valuation, as if Faron already had the cash to proceed alone.

Here’s my thinking, largely augmented by ChatGPT making the arguments in the links provided.

Why clever-1 blockade could be the next great paradigm shift after checkpoint inhibition.

Bexmarilimab could represent a more foundational and universal discovery in oncology than PD-1 inhibitors, by targeting the root orchestrators of immune suppression rather than just releasing T cells downstream:

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68b33634e220819181a9983965320a15

Faron essentially owns the clever-1 target until 2040, at minimum.

Every major pharma company will be aware of Farons Bexmarilimab, especially following oral presentations at all major conferences this year, if they didn’t already.

Bexmarilimab could be a considerably broader opportunity than PD-1 / L1, with only 1 proprietor- Faron Pharmaceuticals.

The combination possibilities are almost endless making Bexmarilimab a strategic platform.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68b332ef27d08191a68d98ac4aee270b

The potential TAM really is mind-blowing.

PD-1s opened the door. Bexmarilimab could expand

the room — by unlocking immunity where PD-1s fail and establishing TAM reprogramming as the next great immuno-oncology backbone.

That makes its scientific impact potentially more fundamental, and its TAM potentially larger than PD-1 inhibitors, with only 1 owner.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68b335ac37088191b5abab9f206a7c2d

Why I feel they already may have the leverage to secure a mega-deal- all major Pharma players will realise that securing that first deal with Faron is the difference between opening the door to the entire franchise and being in pole-position for all follow up collaboration and owning the keys to the entire monopoly, or being locked out for good; hence why I believe we may be on the cusp of a VERY significant upfront and VERY milestone heavy deal as if we are sitting at the table as a major, rather than a minnow…

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68b331af84c88191a3564366f4ef353d

Good luck all, DYOR always…

It is stunning indeed, moreso when you factor in the TP-53 mutation burden of the cohort is 45%.

See below for details:

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/mfn/faron-pharmaceuticals-oy-di---farn/inside-information-faron-to-present-updated-/9030347

Https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68af410abeac81918d7a70899654cad1

Feeling a lot more optimistic about getting a great deal for holders now given the top tier investment bank has been appointed.

They will run a proper process, help us decide our best approach and if it’s best to continue alone for now they will likely have other divisions helping with bringing is out from the shadows to a much broader audience via equity research notes, institutional investment engagement, and fund raises at a premium to this paltry price which should be highly value accretive as we gain the tools to catalyse further interest.

No doubt if the bankers know a knock-out deal is coming the price will rocket as soon as they have had their quota.

Signing off for the night- good luck all- and the best presentation to date by Juho and Petri particularly …

This is what makes Bex so special and unique.

It repairs the underlying cause of the disease, not just killing the blasts… a very new and important slide and I’m sure what will make this so desirable among partners / acquirers while offering transferability into AML and broader bone marrow cancers…

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68af2a34298c819193f722e3f3af11bd

Not sure if anybody else picked up on that comment?

I asked chatGPT the implications of doing this, response in link below…

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68af2537ec0c8191a0dcc672ebb0ed9d

Dracula, you may have nothing better to do with your time than opine and debate stocks you don’t hold and setting up multiple accounts, but I for one do.

Regards….

*BEX