Member Info for emptyend

Drivel.

You always seem to be looking for an argument, so are now filtered (again) 👋👋

I read this as complaining, as it contains no question:

“ what is less clear is what a listed company's obligations are regarding price sensitive information and material discussions with third parties and the conflicts between those obligations and third party discussions. I have tried doing "due diligence" on listed companies in the past only to be blocked with the "catch all" that we had to make do with only that information available in the public domain.”

Crusty complains, but a listed company’s obligations are perfectly clear: disclose LEGAL FACTS promptly.

There is no obligation whatsoever to disclose “maybes”, however material those might be IF they eventually become facts.

Of course it is “just a hypothesis”, tf & chester, but the point is that it IS a possibility that we get a “trial results plus deal” RNS. It is highly unlikely that a new party will suddenly roll up when they see trial results - they will already be “on the case”……and therefore could already be negotiating, with a “Heads of Terms” document just needing to have a few numbers and dates dropped into it…..and to be signed.

Crusty seems not to understand what an NDA is, or what is actually required to trigger an RNS (viz final results, not 42/43 results). There is ALWAYS (well almost always) potentially price-sensitive information in the company’s possession - that is the precise reason that insider dealing rules and NDAs exist. The company has in its possession various pieces of COMMERCIALLY-SENSITIVE potentially price sensitive info - and is NOT required to disclose that info to the market until such info becomes an actual fact (eg by reports being signed/finished, deals having been signed etc)

Per WTP’s post, there is absolutely no obligation on a company to disclose any kite-flying proposals they receive…..only serious, signed, financed, advisered-up ones. If the Board knows that 50% of the shareholders won’t accept a penny less than £1 a share, they are not going to announce that someone wants to but the company for 20p - and nor should they!!

ratcliffewriter’s points are all correct. And Crusty’s latest is completely and utterly wrong. Shareholders are entitled to know the facts about signed deals and commitments - and to receive six-monthly reports. If it isn’t an established legal fact, they aren’t entitled to know. They can ask, if they wish, but they STILL aren’t entitled to know.

This is why bid premia exist - when Scancell announce a deal at 75p or £1 a share, do NOT expect prior warning of this. If the market hasn’t correctly valued the IP, then that is the market’s problem - and if shareholders sold the day before at 11p, that is just their bad luck (assuming the buyer wasn’t an insider trading illegally). It is a huge mistake to make the common error that “something will leak” - in my experience, it rarely does if the company board is honest.

Tf,

“And this, "a week for Scancell to align with a potential partner" is wildly optimistic!! . . . (as you know).”

I don’t agree at all. Scancell will have been speaking to all sorts of companies about all sorts of possible deals now for well over a year, following their conference PR offensive in Spring 2024. And, for all we know, could have disclosed non-public info under an NDA in order to negotiate the terms of a deal.

There could easily be a trial announcement and a deal announcement at the same time.

Crusty says “ EE I would agree with you but need to point out that "construction has actually started" could well, yet, be quite some time. ”

Indeed……which is why I said exactly what I said. And, for the hard-of-reading, I didn’t mention “finished”. Just “started”. I’d guess there may be a steer given in due course, but a Nov/Dec spud expectation for the programme seems fair based on what is publicly known.

Edgar (👋) notes “ For those new here, CH1 is the "back to back" second well from the 2017 campaign that stalled after 1 well. Probably for lack of funds.” …….

……occasionally I wonder what might have happened if we’d just cracked on - but it would have been completely off the scale for risk, given the results of the first well. But, in theory, this location should be an improvement, as a result of the 3D.

Full disclosure: I have substantially reduced my position as last reported to a level similar to my holding before joining the Board. The share price is little changed, five years on. But the next few years may be a different story,

Burble,

Modi-1 news will follow SCOPE but may well be just before something is done with the antibody business. The important thing will be to provide prompt answers to questions about the way forward, especially over funding.

So you agree then with my comment “ drilling activities will follow soon after pipeline construction has actually started.” 🤷

I think we’ll get the test results for SCOPE in the next couple of weeks and it is highly likely that a deal on the way forward will be announced at the same time. If that occurs, it will be an instant game-changer for the share price.

A deal for a chunk of the Glymabs business (float or partnership) may not be far behind.

In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that drilling activities will follow soon after pipeline construction has actually started.

Moonparty says

“I really don't understand why intelligent people are playing down the possibilities here and dissing 10x, 100x gains - this kind of reward is *expected* in biotech - the industry works by small startups feeding the big pharma pipelines. Most fail but those who succeed see massive returns. All the evidence is that Scancell are / will soon be one of the few successes.”

Whilst the last part is contestable, I agree with this. I have previously compared biotech with oil exploration, having previously held an oil exploration stock that rose 80x from its lows (where I first bought). But the difference is that the value of discovered oil reserves can very largely be marked to market whenever you want, because there is a traded and transparent value for a barrel of oil.

That is definitely not the case for biotech assets, because the value of those assets can only be validated when the assets are sold in a deal. But similar returns should still be possible nevertheless. Whether that is a modest ten-fold increase or the inanaco-esque 100x increase we will find out in time, but I am pretty confident it will be in that range from current levels. But none of this happens quickly enough for many holders, hence the current malaise.

So now we are clear on the Glymab sub. It all makes perfect sense to me. What will be interesting is the route they choose to raise funds through it - and the valuation that will be thereby implied. There are clearly 3-4 others behind SC134 being investigated and it seems likely to me that the money will be raised by one means or another in the Autumn……so Sept/Oct. They plainly have live discussions with both potential investors and industry partners, so the route they will ultimately go down will depend on the terms of each alternative.

Well don’t waste everyone’s time by asking on here, Ruck, if you don’t think it is important 🙄🙄🙄

Why not ask the company at 11.00? 🤷

Bermuda,

That is surely correct. This is about the creation of a vehicle to hold all the Glymabs IP……and also the potential cashflow from the milestones on current and future deals. It is certainly wholly-owned for now, but it enables equity deals to be done for part of the company’s IP without granting an equity interest in the whole company.

I’d be on “partner watch”….

Interesting RNS, with a new sub to hold the Glymab assets, presumably. I wonder what will be done with that…..

Zero chance of that! Literally zero.

It won’t be anything more than a partnership for something. Probably to do with a Glymab.

Given the response of Lindy and the Chairman to my very direct question at the AGM, it won’t be anything to do with LD’s position. She won’t be retiring whilst the company is still in the driving seat of developing its IP. Once they sell control over a majority of their products in development, then it may become different.

They are “nearly there”, remember……

My guess would be that there is a partnership deal to be announced on one or more development products. Whether that is SC134 or Modi1 …..or 2…..or iSCIB1+…..who knows? Or perhaps an industry player wants an equity stake?

Re square10’s point, the “one month” idea may apply as a guide to execs but it won’t apply to non-execs, who are generally out of the loop between board meetings unless there are active negotiations. It is the company that determines who is and is not “inside” (and normally, if a major deal is being negotiated, everyone will be inside)

Pharos is a high-yielding option money punt on the Middle East conflict, currently trading still at a big discount to analyst valuations (eg 54.6p), even on the basis of the present position in the oil market and the existing development & explo status. There is a lot of optionality which remains to be unlocked - and perhaps the current uncertainties may provide an opportunity for the company to do exactly that, at last, re 125/6?

https://progressive-research.com/wp-content/uploads/data-sync/research/PHAR%2020250606.pdf