Member Info for BuenaVista

LOL. Very brave Saint. Reminds me of my mother as she slipped into dementia and would come out with something like "They're leaving tomorrow" with absolutely no clue as to who 'they' were.

There are different uses for Affimer. Therapeutic use is a given and the IP for that will stay with Avacta. Diagnostic use is something else and can be licensed out or sold with Dx. Maybe Avacta want to retain complete control in some way over diagnostic use in oncology, maybe not, we'll know shortly.

@beinthelead, you seem to have zero faith in Avacta/Coris producing any LFT diagnostics using Affimers. How long do you think it should take Coris to announce the first Affimer LFT, or range of LFTs, considering their staffing resource and any development activities they may have been working on pre-acquisition?

Phew! We sold a dog there just in time.

I believe the 'objects' were set out in general terms, without reference to named branches, divisions, etc. of the company.

Here's how Readybuys' start, still Avacta's objects unless anyone can find more recent, relevant ones:

"To carry on the business of a holding company in all its branches, and to acquire by purchase, lease, concession, grant, licence or otherwise such businesses, options, rights, privileges, ... [you get the picture]"

That is the first of something like 29 paragraphs.

That was from 2003. Sometime later the rules were changed and now the objects can just be stated in very general, one liner, terms or simply omitted. My guesses are that Avacta have just removed whatever objects were there or, if there is an American company interested in some aspect of Avacta, the objects will be replaced by very specific ones that will satisfy even the most obnoxious of US lawyers.

I think having to do the buy calculations in Roman numerals put them off. Not everyone can master that technique quite the way Tony can.

They don't appear to have done. That they are doing it now could be because the present management are more on the ball and/or because any company they might be dealing with might require it, especially I'd say any NASDAQ company where, if things go wrong, they could lay themselves open to a class action in the land of the attorneys.

The Idiocracy is coming. Then AI will take over...

Thanks. So...

"A company’s articles might include its ‘objects’, the purposes for which the company was formed, which operate as a limit on the directors’ authority. If something is outside the company’s objects, the directors may face an action for breach of duty or breach of the articles, and the relevant transaction may be voidable. Companies are now deemed to have unlimited objects unless they choose to include specific objects in their articles. However, for a company incorporated before 1 October 2009, the objects in its memorandum of association on that date were deemed imported into its articles.

"A change to the objects in a company’s articles still requires a special resolution of the members, but in this particular instance, the change only takes effect when the relevant form (a CC04) is filed at Companies House."

...we may or may not get an RNS soon calling an EGM within the next two weeks to pass a special resolution.

The Readybuy company objects are multiple and in no way relate to what Avacta does. ReadyBuy bought Avacta and then changed its name to Avacta. I was not able to find any subsequent list of objects specific for Avacta.

So has Avacta been carrying on its business without any relevant objects? And can a company change its objects without shareholder approval? Maybe this recent move is just tidy housekeeping, preparing for the future but without a specific date for an event in mind.

@lor_9, that link doesn't work for me. What date was the document?

Pretty sure it was a joke, considering the high number of shares bought, and the obvious conflict of interest.

Short closing?

HL end of day prices are all over the place for the first half hour or so as the after hours trades go through but I noticed on Christmas Eve they were even worse right up until the usual end of business. Seems like the same again today. Currently showing as 38/58 and on my Firefox tab as midpoint 44.50 (+5.75p) +11.50% !

Yes, I saw that as well yesterday. Maybe Avacta is using Readybuy's Statement of Objects! What Avacta was doing back then certainly doesn't describe the area of work they're currently engaged in. In those days it was all diagnostics and analytics.

I noticed that and https://avacta.com/investors/key-information/ yesterday Bella. Both are woefully out of date.

Early night tonight LDA?

Seems the document was sent by post rather than submitted online.

And why does the document need to be processed, what process, by whom, and is that 10 calendar days or 10 working days?

Anyone?

Has anyone found a "statement of company's objects" in Avacta's memorandum of association or articles of association?

AVA3996 was lauded by Alan as being tumour-agnostic (as long as there is FAP present to cleave off the warhead). I suppose in that sense AVA6000 is as well, just a lot less effective on the efficacy-toxicity scale. However, as exatecan is also tumour-agnostic, AVA3996 became redundant; not even worthy of licensing out as the warhead is a new chemical entity, unlike doxorubicin in AVA6000 and exatecan in AVA6103, and no match for exatecan. That rather begs the question of whether anything would be significantly better than exatecan as a pre|CISION warhead. There may be better exatecan analogues (AVA6103s) of course, but that would be totally within the scope of Avacta's IP.

I don't see the resource spent on AVA3996, which was handed to Avacta on a plate along with AVA6000, as a great waste of effort as there were processes to go through for AVA6000 durng that time, for AVA3996 proof of concept in animals, and for launching Avacta's own series of research compounds and all the drug design effort that went into that. Besides, the bashers were never saying AVA3996 was a waste of effort at the time were they, so they should have nothing to say about it now.