Member Info for emptyend

No point, guidfarr. This is a big boys game.

You aren't, Impvesta.

The only sense I can make if it is if someone is lurking who may make a better bid. Radoff will withdraw acceptance if a bid of 15% more appears - so I wonder if he has a means of generating one?

I can well see why Ratio want it. I can’t see why the Pharos board does……

…..though it is interesting the Radoff and the Continis have reserved the right to withdraw their irrevocable acceptance in the event of a third-party bid that is 15% or more higher.

I have no idea why the Board seems to support this.

Investors in this company wanted to take exploration risk - and the Board have failed to deliver on it. I’d be happier if they’d decided to sole-risk Prospect A on 125…..that would be $50mn well spent (as I’m sure Ratio also think).

You raise a very interesting point, Balerno. There may well be a deal done that is structured to effectively offer a last chance for “pre-IPO” equity ahead of a NASDAQ listing. Such an equity offer may (due to other aspects of the deal covering the costs of Phase 3 trials) be very limited in size and may also be at a significant premium to the pre-deal price. And there is also capacity for both Redmile and Vulpes to stand their corners in such a raise.

As such, management may well have all the tools they need to move the share price materially higher (at least when the MHRA stop sitting on their hands).

Crusty may recall a similar scenario when a raise was expected and marketmakers pushed the price down in anticipation, only to discover that the cornerstone investor was supporting a raise at a 25-30% higher price.

I wouldn’t say that exactly, vd, but there are certainly an array of people who have vested interests and an opportunity to interfere with timelines. And multiple parties have quite an incentive to try to delay disruptive, game-changing products from coming to market.

I think it is pretty clear from Phil’s committee appearance that there are suspicions over the reasons for the MHRA delay - after all, they KNOW all the background from trials over many years…..and yet it seems they still haven't given approval and have raised a series of small questions and (possibly deliberately) dragged out the process for (as of now) five months longer than the FDA. And the FDA has upgraded their approval since then too.

Why bother trying to operate in a country that doesn’t care?

Breakingeven, I don’t think it that strange at all. Back in February, after the news re the FDA, I contacted the analyst with the aim of finding out when the next full (November style) analysis was likely to be done. As with everything Scancell, it was expected to be events-driven - specifically the partnering/funding of the iSCIB1+ trial. It is now over 4 months on and there has been no news. So, if they are expected to produce two pieces of proper analysis a year, they have just run out of time waiting.

The very much bigger question is “what are we waiting for?”. It is clear from Phil’s recent Parliamentary appearance that there are options to, in effect, move out of the UK - and that some of these are very attractive from both a valuation and access to capital perspective. Since that appearance, the UK Health Minister has resigned and the PM who was persuaded to personally endorse Scancell’s efforts has also resigned.

None of this is going to make it more attractive to stay in the UK - so I think the next news is going to be merger, takeover or listing and a move abroad. We still don’t seem to have MHRA approval either - so why the hell stay where governments , quangos etc make life much more difficult?

……and some of us may also be asking that question for themselves…..

This paragraph should also be noted:

“ Scancell has highlighted future upside potential for iSCIB1+ in

earlier disease settings such as neoadjuvant/adjuvant resectable melanoma

(where additional improvement in outcomes might be achieved given the less frail

patient population) or as a preventative therapy in certain high-risk groups.

However, our current Scancell valuation and our iSCIB1+ peak sales assumption

only considers the advanced melanoma indication where there is visibility on the

clinical plans and regulatory timelines.”

…..because, on the numbers given at the AGM, the peak sales number could be 6x the figure allowed for in Trinity’s valuation if the above applications are included. So the TD estimate looks potentially conservative on market sizes as well as on the probability of commercial success.

Note also that TD’s valuation also assumes that all the products are partnered. So it seems to me a bidder for the whole product/platform/company could be looking at very much higher upside numbers.

Good question there, Crusty. I think there are a number of things that are interlinked in relation to further trials on both platforms.

This is a key argument:

“ We have employed a conservative 50% probability (typically funded oncology assets with solid Phase II data probabilities range from 50% to 65%) but acknowledge the strength of the SCOPE data, coupled with the targeting of suitable HLA patients, suggests a probability of 65% could be argued for. The impact of these assumptions on Scancell’s valuation would see our current £399m ($499m) valuation, equivalent to 39p per share (32p fully diluted), rise to £540m ($675m), or to 52p per share (43p fully diluted) if a 50% probability of success was applied to iSCIB1+; which would become £645m ($806m), equivalent to 62p per share (52p fully diluted) if the more aggressive 65% probability were employed.”

……which fully justifies the thought that any bid for the platform or the company itself would need to be comfortably clear of 65p if the board if to give up control…..

…..and that, in turn, points to the present share price as simply wrong - because deals are being discussed which, almost certainly in my view, will lead to a sharp move higher to the 40p area. That sharp move cannot now be far off……maybe only hours away?

Good example of the feedback loop inherent in AI. We shouldn’t be making it even worse here!

The only point I’d make is that the existence of the MHRA/FDA hook-up may affect the details of the trial design and, perhaps, the arrangements with a partner.

Good spot, cleaner. Let us hope that this is the reason that the MHRA weren’t set to sign off the final trial details - and that Scancell will be the first British company to benefit!

At least it would be a decent explanation for the delay in the sign off.

And it may also give the Modi programme a boost?

Don't think it was, Balerno. Nobody except Kwasi Kwarteng tries to make a major announcement on a Friday. Though MHRA approval (for example) wouldn’t be major on its own in current circumstances.

This Thursday would be a poor choice from a PR perspective……we’ll not only have the press obsessing about where it all went wrong against Croatia, but it is also polling day in the Makerfield by-election.

I’d prefer next Tuesday…..

I’d guess that the tissue samples (and what they showed) are one of the reasons that the ModiFY results have been held back. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some unanticipated discovery either……

Remember that the resection cohort of head and neck cancer will have yielded post-treatment tissue samples. We have heard nothing about what those show. Yet.

Miavoce…..two slides earlier:

“ MULTIPLE MAJOR MARKETS TODAY & MAJOR POTENTIAL EXPANSION”

What is that portfolio worth?

Scancell will have gone up more than most, Crusty, so if short-term punters take money off the table, it was always a likely target.