Member Info for Energyshares

You don’t add more patients and conditions if it’s not working …..

When a biotech company owns the IP to its foundational platform but decides to sell (divest) the rights to a single drug developed from that platform, it essentially executes an asset sale. This strategy allows the biotech to monetize a single candidate while retaining the underlying technology for future pipeline development.

Here are the key implications of this approach:

1. Licensing and Royalties

* Retained Rights: The biotech typically grants the buyer a royalty-bearing license to use the underlying platform IP specifically for developing and commercializing that single drug.

* Revenue Streams: The biotech often secures upfront payments, milestone payments (based on clinical or regulatory successes), and ongoing royalties on global sales of the divested drug.

2. Risk and Cost Segregation

* Buyer's Burden: The acquiring company assumes all future costs and risks associated with clinical trials, regulatory approval, and commercialization for that specific drug.

* Focus for the Biotech: The selling biotech frees up capital and resources to advance other pipeline assets or upgrade its platform technology without being tethered to the costs of the sold drug's late-stage development.

3. Exclusivity and Non-Compete Clauses

* Platform Exclusivity: The buyer will likely demand exclusivity regarding the specific target or disease indication the drug treats.

* The Biotech’s Limitations: The biotech must ensure its core platform IP isn't overly restricted by the sale. It will need to negotiate boundaries to ensure it can still use the platform to develop drugs for different targets or diseases without infringing on the buyer's new asset.

4. Manufacturing and Supply Chain

* Supply Agreements: If the drug requires complex manufacturing intrinsic to the biotech’s platform, the parties will likely establish a clinical and commercial supply agreement. The biotech becomes a contract manufacturer for the buyer, creating an additional revenue stream but also operational dependencies.

5. Valuation and Negotiation Complexity

* Attributing Value: Separating the value of a single drug from the value of the platform that generated it is highly complex. The IP terms must clearly define what constitutes "platform improvements" (which the biotech might keep) versus "product-specific improvements" (which the buyer usually acquires).

6. M&A Potential

* Buyout Option: Sometimes, divesting a single drug acts as a "try before you buy" arrangement. The larger pharmaceutical company buying the drug may eventually seek to acquire the entire biotech platform to secure the underlying technology entirely.

Https://avacta.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Ferrarotto-R-ASCO-2026_final.pdf

We are particularly encouraged by signs of efficacy in patients with salivary gland cancers (SGC and the consistency of these data from Phase 1a and 1b support the potential for this agent to move to later stage trials. The excellent safety profile was further demonstrated by the absence of severe cardiac toxicity and lifting of the lifetime maximum, following careful analysis of drug concentration versus effect on the heart.

I asked google AI how much will Avacta’s share be in Affyxell.

That’s your answer…

As of May 2026, AffyXell Therapeutics is actively advancing its next-generation mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapies and expanding its portfolio into protein degradation, aiming for an initial public offering (IPO) in 2026. The company, a joint venture between Avacta and Daewoong Pharmaceutical, recently partnered with ProAbTech to develop LYTAC protein degrader therapies for autoimmune diseases.

The exact post-IPO value of Avacta Group's 25% stake in AffyXell Therapeutics has not been publicly disclosed, as AffyXell has not yet finalized its target IPO valuation or offering size.

However, we can estimate the valuation of Avacta's stake using standard market benchmarks for 2026 biotech public debuts.

Estimated Stake Value Based on Market Benchmarks

The table below projects the potential value of Avacta’s 25% ownership across common market-entry valuation models: [1]

IPO Valuation Scenario [1, 2] AffyXell Market Cap Avacta 25% Stake Value

Conservative / Early Biotech Debut $150 million $37.5 million

Average 2026 Biotech IPO $300 million $75.0 million

High-Growth / Advanced Clinical Success $600 million $150.0 million.

Key Variables Impacting the Final Value

1. Dilution: Avacta's 25% stake will likely be diluted by 15% to 25% when AffyXell issues new shares to public investors during the IPO.

2. Platform Validation: AffyXell’s recent 2026 expansion into LYTAC protein degraders with ProAbTech may boost its listing valuation.

3. Market Conditions: While early 2026 biotech IPOs (like Aktis Oncology) have seen strong debuts, the broader cell therapy investment sector has experienced minor tightening.

How quick SP could change.

Filtronic beat Avacta to best Tech award in December 2025 so I put on my watch list.

Both Avacta trading at around same MCap at the time £280m

Today Filtronic trading at £4.02 up £0.60p today

Now as a MCap of £900m

Avacta’s day will come when we get increases like this…..

GLA

In preclinical studies, the AVA6103 (FAP-Exatecan) compound showed a tumor-to-plasma concentration ratio of up to 50:1 in mouse models. This ratio is significantly higher than the 18:1 ratio originally seen in mouse models for AVA6000 (FAP-Doxorubicin). 

Notably, while AVA6000’s ratio improved from 18:1 in mice to a median of 100:1 in human patients, the Exatecan-based version (AVA6103) is already starting from a much higher baseline in animal studies.

IMO

It can’t be financial news, but I had a thought and asked Grok…

With Avacta’s AVA6103 trial with mice did they see a complete response after 2 doses ?

Yes, in pre-clinical studies, Avacta’s AVA6103 (a FAP-enabled exatecan peptide drug conjugate) demonstrated deep complete responses (CR) and complete tumor regressions in mice, with data showing rapid, robust efficacy.

So IMO first patient has had two doses and we have a CR.

GLA

If a biotech completes a JV on an fda approved drug can they exit the JV on a full takeover from another company ?

Yes, a biotech company can exit a joint venture (JV) upon a full takeover by another company, but the ability to do so, and the terms of that exit, are entirely dependent on the specific Change of Control clauses and exit mechanisms defined in the original Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) or Shareholders' Agreement. 

In the biotech sector, where JVs are used for FDA-approved drugs to share commercialization costs or expertise, a takeover often triggers a re-evaluation of the partnership. 

Key Factors for Exiting a JV During a Takeover

* Change of Control Provisions: Many JVs contain provisions that allow a non-defaulting or non-acquired party to terminate the JV if the other partner undergoes a change of control (i.e., is taken over).

* Voluntary Termination Rights: The agreement may allow a party to exit at will or upon specified events, which might be triggered if the incoming acquirer is a competitor or does not fit the strategic goals of the JV.

* Drag-Along / Tag-Along Rights: If a third party acquires the biotech, they may use "drag-along" rights to force the JV partner to sell their interest, or the partner may use "tag-along" rights to exit alongside the acquired biotech.

* Buy-Sell / Call-Put Options: The JVA often contains mechanisms like "Russian roulette" or "Texas shootout" provisions, allowing one party to buy out the other, particularly if a takeover creates a deadlock or a strategic mismatch. 

Potential Outcomes upon Takeover

1. Buyout: The acquirer purchases the remaining JV interest from the partner, gaining full control of the FDA-approved drug.

2. Termination & Re-licensing: The JV is dissolved, the assets (intellectual property, marketing rights) are distributed according to the agreement, and the new owner may re-license the drug.

3. Continuation: If the acquirer wishes to keep the JV, the agreement may allow the partnership to continue with the new owner replacing the original biotech. 

Strategic Considerations

* IP Rights: The agreement must explicitly define what happens to intellectual property and marketing rights upon dissolution.

* Key Contractual Consent: Many JVs provide that key commercial contracts (such as marketing the FDA-approved drug) can be terminated or renegotiated if a partner undergoes a change of control. 

*

Disclaimer: Joint venture agreements in life sciences are complex. Exit strategies are highly tailored to the negotiated terms and legal advice is necessary to interpret specific contractual clauses.

The best deal for Avacta and LTH’s is to do a royalty deal to give Avacta enough cash for the next 3 years and pay off the loan.

No dilution to share holders because the royalty deal is on future profits.

Then T/O price is maximised and it’s the BP who takes Avacta out that pays the royalties or pays them off.

GLA

Sorry Timster missed your post a lot of green boxes today,

Just catching up, fingers crossed for more CR’s in the mice models and it will get very interesting at conference.

RNS

“This presentation includes updated preclinical data from the Company's second clinical candidate, AVA6103, a novel FAP-activated pre|CISION® peptide-drug conjugate (PDC) delivering the topoisomerase I inhibitor (TOP1i) exatecan directly to the tumor-stroma interface, as well as details of the ongoing FOCUS-01 Phase 1 trial of this agent.”

So will we receive another RNS after market close if market sensitive info is revealed in the presentation.

Does anyone know what time posters tomorrow

We are 8 hours ahead

Both posters 9:00am tomorrow San Diego

San Diego (PDT/PST) is 8 hours behind the UK (BST/GMT). As of April 2026, when it is 5:00 PM in London (BST, UTC+1), it is 9:00 AM in San Diego

So after market closes 5:00pm UK

I have just watched the interview.

The Stand out for me,

this interview was before AVA6103 FPD.

She was asked when AVA6103 starts in clinic and she replies “imminently”

Now if there was any problems in the last 2 weeks on the trial or data was not meeting their expectations this interview wouldn’t of been posted…

GLA 🚀

This shows you AVA6103 is worth billions once safety and efficacy is proven.

But Daiichi made more money licensing the out exatecan derivatives.

Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (now Daiichi Sankyo) got the furthest in attempting to bring exatecan (DX-8951f) to market, taking it through Phase I, Phase II, and into Phase III clinical evaluations. 

If Daiichi Sankyo had successfully brought exatecan to market as a standalone drug (rather than as a payload in their DXd ADC platform), its value would have likely been substantial but hampered by early toxicity challenges. However, the strategic pivot to using exatecan derivatives in Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) led to a much higher valuation through partnerships with AstraZeneca and Merck, with potential deal values reaching up to $22 billion for specific, similar technology. 

Here is the breakdown of the value associated with Daiichi's "exatecan" efforts:

* Initial Exatecan (DX-8951f): Early trials for exatecan as a standalone drug showed promise but faced challenges with dose-limiting toxicities, including neutropenia and gastrointestinal effects. While it was determined to be a strong topoisomerase I inhibitor, its failure to establish a broad, safe therapeutic window as a standalone treatment limited its initial market value.

* The "Exatecan Derivative" (DXd) Revolution: Daiichi Sankyo realized the potential of exatecan by developing it into a "payload" (DXd) for ADCs. The success of this strategy is best represented by Enhertu (trastuzumab deruxtecan), an exatecan derivative ADC developed with AstraZeneca.

* AstraZeneca Deal (Enhertu): In 2019, AstraZeneca agreed to pay up to $6.9 billion to co-develop Enhertu.

* AstraZeneca Deal (Dato-DXd): In 2020, another deal worth up to $6 billion was signed for a second ADC, Dato-DXd.

* Merck Deal (3 ADC candidates): In 2023, Merck entered a deal worth up to $22 billion for three of Daiichi’s other DXd-based ADCs. 

*

If exatecan had been successfully launched earlier as a targeted, safe treatment, it would likely have rivaled or surpassed other topoisomerase-based therapies. Its successful adaptation into DXd, however, created a much larger, multi-billion dollar impact on Daiichi Sankyo’s market capitalization.

Good luck all

Keep hold of your golden shares.

T. W. A. T. ‘s

T horn. W ynd. A nd T ouk

Can you close the door after yourselves

BV is right for P1a and P1b

it only works out 36 patients per indication

4 x cancer types.

Getting a biotech clinical trial selected by NEXT Oncology is highly competitive, as they are a premier Phase I network looking for novel, high-potential agents. However, it is not "hard" in terms of bureaucracy if the trial aligns with their mission of accelerating innovative, "next-generation" cancer treatments for patients who have exhausted other options. 

As of 2025, NEXT Oncology is part of the IQVIA family and is strongly partnered with Texas Oncology (the largest private oncology practice in the US) and Crown Bioscience, focusing heavily on Phase 1 trial innovation. 

Factors Affecting Selection Success:

* Novelty and Type of Agent: NEXT Oncology prioritizes novel drugs that augment the immune system or target precise molecular markers, specifically looking for new treatment options for patients whose current therapies are no longer working.

* Scientific Merit & Data Quality: They require high-quality translational data, often utilizing patient-derived models (PDX and organoids) in collaboration with Crown Bioscience to validate candidates.

* Speed and Efficiency: They emphasize fast, "real-time activation" for patients. Adoption of technology like proXimity™ for near real-time data transmission to Electronic Data Capture (EDC) systems makes a trial more attractive, as it speeds up decision-making.

* Partnership Network: Their affiliation with Proxima Clinical Research's Early Phase Oncology Network (EPON) indicates that partnering with experienced CROs in their network can streamline the selection process. 

*

How to Increase Chances:

* Align with Phase 1 Focus: Focus on novel therapeutics (e.g., targeted therapies, immuno-oncology) that meet unmet needs.

* Demonstrate High-Quality Preclinical Data: Provide robust evidence of safety and efficacy.

* Emphasize Rapid Startup Capability:Trials that can demonstrate quick, efficient startup processes are preferred.

* Engage through Existing Networks: Work through their partner networks (e.g., IQVIA, Proxima CRO, US Oncology Network). 

*

While they run over 100 trials, the high demand for top-tier Phase I sites means they are selective based on the potential impact on patient care

Phase 1a (Dose Escalation): The dose-escalation portion is designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability and MTD and/or RP2D of AVA6103, administered as monotherapy in two schedules: Day 1 of a 21-day cycle (Q3W schedule) and Day 1 of a 14-day cycle (Q2W schedule).

Inclusion Criteria:

12. The subject is willing and able to comply with the protocol, including any PK blood sampling and tumor biopsy requirements and agrees to return to clinic for follow-up visits and examinations.

But then says:

For subjects in Phase 1a or 1b, on treatment tumor biopsy is optional. -

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07454642