Member Info for BuenaVista

Extract from the transcript of the business update part of last year's AGM. This is similar but isn't your quote.

'The management and the board are focusing on bridging that funding gap. We have two non dilutive capital sources in the short term that we will be looking at. The first is to realize the value for our diagnostics assets, through the process that we have entered.

"The second is the business development strategy is underway.

"As you'll recall, as we talked about, a couple months ago, deal making in the preclinical setting as opposed to with clinical proof of concept and clinical proof of mechanism data as we presented at AACR.

"These are are two very different strategies.

"Based on the data that we published in April of twenty twenty four at AACR, we are in a different deal making strategy.

"Simon, our chief business officer, and myself have been working hard on this strategy, and we look forward to bringing you the results here soon.

"Our management focus has also been on bringing in additional institutional investors into the story.

"We have been working with, many funds out there and meeting with them for both medium and long term capital needs. The clinical data are really key to building this, unique equity story as well as bringing in those commercial deals.

"And our management team has been focusing on key global conferences as well as, in individual investor meetings. And the board and the executive team have the credibility to bring in such institutional investors, and we look forward to updating you on our progress here."

OK, examples of gaslighting and lying please. You know, rather than just making catch-all unsubstantiated accusations.

Also the source for your original quote would, as also asked for by another poster, be appreciated. For context.

...although from the way you write you seem to regard Avacta as a trade rather than an investment.

Bed change for McNuff!!!

Honestly, if you didn't realise that drug development takes time and money and 'start-up' biotech requires regular funding rounds, then you shouldn't have invested.

@TheGord, it looks like you don't understand drug development either or also have an agenda.

@McNuff, yeah, sacking the board at this stage of the AVA6000 trial and AVA6103 development and getting back up to speed again in 6 months time with a whole new board is going to achieve what? Your aims?

I suggest you know very little about drug development. Do you think Avacta can strong-arm BP into making a deal? 😂😂😂

@TheGord, are you saying this is a general theory of management or something inherent to Avacta? The current group of 'they' have not instigated any dilution.

Always worth checking the posting history when an rcesole suddenly appears.

Avacta won't take the TNBC indication forward alone. Far too expensive and slow and hence financially dicey.

The "vision to develop one new drug candidate annually" is new to me but very welcome. Maybe they'll try to license out or partner AVA6000 for all three Phase 1b indications and expand the trial to include the other indications listed on the ClinicalTrials website. They'll need a lot of cash to push one candidate a year into the clinic.

Avacta will want to get a licence or partnership deal for the TNBC indication for AVA6000. That's where the big money is - cost of trials, size of market, funding from the deal.

I guess they wouldn't shy away from a good deal for one of the minor indications as well.

Specifically, has CC spoken about or mentioned in an RNS what '385/200' means?

I've seen it said that it is 385 first dose followed by dosing at 200. That makes sense, but has it come from Avacta or is it an assumption?

Not saying they have and not saying they haven't started dosing STS patients, but a strict reading of that March RNS only says that patients have been dosed in at least one of the three cohorts. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

Do we have any proof that patients have actually been recruited for the STS cohort? NOT recruiting for that cohort at the present time, given that Avacta, have prioritised SGC instead, would be a money-saver.

Also, Phase 2 as an efficacy study (which it is) for doxorubicin is a strange concept! Will be interesting to see what the comparator will be.

Has CC ever explained what this final 3 weekly (n=6) cohort means? I take it that is the dosing regimen being used in Phase 1b.

..

@o_m, if I understand you correctly, you are talking about Phase 1a data, in which case, at what dosage and frequency did they beat the PFS target? Are the numbers per indication/sub-indication statistically significant? Do you think that data has gone into the Phase 1b dosing regimen decision?

Give it a rest Bigears. Your hatred of this CEO is obvious and tedious.

Could been B2H if I'd read the whole thread. On my phone and later at night here, so no I didn't.

There are 3 steps to patent protection.

1. Patent application - do not put anything into the public domain until the patent has been submitted (the priority date) as doing so very much runs the risk of invalidating the application.

2. Patent publication - you can talk publicly about the invention but do not letyour competitors have full details. Everyone can see that Avacta has AVA6103 and that it is a pre|CISION version of exatecan with half-life extension and sustained release but no one outside Avacta should know the exact chemical structure. This gives Avacta extra time to keep ahead of the competition.

3. Granting of examined patent - potential partners and licencees won't want to commit until the invention has legal protection since if the patent is not granted anyone can use the 'invention'for free.

There is a fourth stage - successful legal challenge of the patent - but I don't think that would apply here (if there has been no prior disclosure) as AVA6103 uses the pre|CISION invention plus the new linker and end group (extended half-life and sustained release) inventions to vastly increase the therapeutic window of a drug that is too toxic to life to be given alone.

Avacta WILL need more funds. That is obvious since they don't have any significant income or possibly no income (it's been a long time since the last milestone payment) and the sale of Coris isn't going to cut it.

What we don't know is HOW and WHEN that funding will arrive. Only the board and the auditors know anything about that.