Member Info for Florida

reins

I see your point regarding the possible back room deal, however, I think your looking too closely at a situation constructed by the incompetence of Fincapp. Whatever deal was done, was done to get them out of a pickle. In the presentation video, AR went to great lengths not to smear Fincapp with any wrong doing, then later in the heat of discussion blamed all brokers for achieving any price for the sake of getting a deal. Which does indirectly point the finger at Fincapp. The two tranches may have been set up by Fincapp before AR took the raines. Leaving AR no time to change what had already taken place.

It is very tidy to roll everything up in one tidy bundle but tidy does not push the price up. We want each event to happen with maximum potential impact. The debt deal could spur at least a 1p - 2p price improvement when announced and this should be the stepping stone towards additional announcements for newly established contracts. I think as the momentum builds we could be looking at 2 or 3 contract announcements a month, and the effect of these contracts will be significantly beneficial to the price now the settlement is out of the way.

Definitely not within the placing Flipper. This would be an incredible coup to clinch such a deal and any price gains would be restricted within the placing. Much better in about 2 to 3 weeks.

I'm blaming it on auto correct.

A few important points to consider.

Dept deal with TF could be signed and sealed any time before xmas. The new CEO in talks in the US sorting this out now.

Fincap is to produce an updated/revised assessment of the company shortly after the AGM, possibly Mid November.

Reassuring to see they are "cautiously" entering the US.

Good point raised from a shareholder 40:40 on the presentation video highlighted the expected growth over the next year. AR said "revenue will increase quite rapidly".

Additional placing is not definite. If it is required, it's already covered, according to our so called crooked spiv. It seems he has already lined up two major institutional investors who have shown interest over the last two weeks. I would assume that the placing whether or not would be determined by the extent/pace of the growth balanced with higher Research and Development costs over the next 6 to 12 months.

Higher Research and Development costs due to integration with Illumina technology as part of the settlement.

Barry Hextall confirmed the potential clawback of missed clients originally deterred by litigation, particularly in Germany that would additionaly contribute to the overall acceleration of growth.

Additional 500,000 shares bought by the Chairman can't be a bad thing.

No idea where 19m came from. Should have been 95m. Even that was unrealistic @ 24p I agree. 74m more realistic.

Much to think about with quite a bit of information to peruse over, more so over the coming days. Can't say too much at the moment because I'm off out but there is one thing needed to be said that's an important factor to consider. TF's considerable holding of 19m shares, albeit in warrants, and the fact that they are small fry in comparison to Illumina in terms of platform market share, makes them IMV a prime candidate to bid for the company. Of course we don't know what promises were made to Illumina in order to achieve a settlement, however it does remain a firm possibility. Would be very nice in this years Xmas stocking.

I hate you Flipper, you just posted virtually what I was about to say. Well, hate is a bit of a strong word, lets say "envy" instead. Well at least envy your typing speed. Anyway, this is what I was going to say.

Fincap a company obviously originated from the a**hole of a Walrus has the audacity to make projections for future growth based upon 7p per share, which is the value they set for the company as an institutional investment, laughable. What's even worse, taking into account growth for the last 6 months alone was 45%, above expectation of 40%, total for the full financial year 2018 expected minimum 90%, Fincapp expects growth to slow down for some inexplicable reason the following year 2019 down to 45% (£11.9m) and expects growth for the next two years 2020 - 2021 at 12.5% per year.

Because of the settlement, the potential market for growth has just widend by approx 500% and Fincapp suggests our growth rate should go down. Not by any small amount, more like 300%. It's laughable. I thought at first Hemo was pulling our leg, but evidently it's true. God help us with this company working for us.

Flipper - thanks for that. I think you've hit the nail on the head with regards the pressure the auditor, accountants and BOD would have been under to get things right in the legal sense, and the late presenting of the finals may well have caused overkill in words used. I believe that the timing may have also played a role in that going concern excerpt could have been written the day before, in the future context, and were in fact referring to the present placing and not an additional placing. All very much supposition I agree, but does answer some serious questions.

It is important to read between the lines but not get carried away with assuming too much due to the lack of information. Much will be made clear of the next week.

Here's a question for Flipper - Would an Institutional Investor invest if he knew a second placing was around the corner?

Bakky - If what TW has said is correct, and I don't doubt Masterblasters integrity, I cannot see any reason why they would need to present an RNS to confirm or deny anything if no placing forthcoming.

In this world of openness and transparency a going concern is an instrument by which the obligation of the company to present to investors possible/potential worst case scenarios. It is not, as many have assumed, a statement of fact. It does seem ludicrous IMV to think they would deliberately scupper the share price for the foreseeable future with a statement that they may or may not require another placing at some undefined time in the future. It just did not make sense.

Boyzee - I don't think it's an easy process to remove a Nomad. They have to apply to AIM with a valid, backed up reason in order to have them removed. Having said that, I'm not sure it's the Nomad that needs to be removed. FinnCap are the one's that cocked up the placing. If TW is correct with his assessment of events, Finncap would have us sitting at 5p now.

I agree, volume is immensely important and the placing stifled the volume build up that should have manifested immediately after the settlement announcement. A point to note, a placing is officially a closed period, so this in itself restricts anyone remotely connected to the company or associated companies from trading. With the placing out of the way we should see a material change.

I must say I expected, the recent character assasinations of BOD members to materialise next week, now seems a little early. However, although, I'm sure his wife wouldn't agree, Adam Reynaulds assumed playboy style does set him up as an easy target. I originally bought into this company because the product was good, had a beleivable CEO and a chairman who had an incredible reputation for turning badly run companies into astonishing successes, Optobiotics, listed at the same time as Premaitha is a perfect example. There are and will be many in the lead up to the 25th, as I have said before, who will attack the BOD with personal abuse. This is IMV standard prcatice for placings, so don't be surprised. The MM's know there could be a rush of buying and they want to slow it down by attacking the only thing left to attack, just don't believe what they say.

Usually I would come out guns blazing when someone makes themselves out to be an absolute idiot, but on this occasion I hold back on the basis that LTH Bakky seems to have inadvertently drawn himself into the firing line and I would prefer not to include him in my condescending vitriol that follows.

Dibs - Lets start from the beginning - you said -

"No one seems to have spotted that they actually released a trading update with the full year results. And now, two weeks later they release another trading update for the same period. The difference between the two - £100k. Not worth it was it. Just looks desperate. The other thing to note is that they are comparing to H1 the previous year. Sorry Lyn you won’t get away with that one, this is NOT a seasonal business. If you compare to the previous half year period the growth is far smaller. So, what can we deduce from this once we use relevant statistics. We can deduce that costs/expenses are growing faster than revenues and that’s why they said they would focus on this, because they can see it is a major issue. "

My reply to this -

"The recent update was up until the 31st March 2018. Figures mentioned up to 30th September were projections only (40% increase). Todays RNS was confirmation that those projections were accurate and correct (45% increase)."

You were totally wrong on everything stated.

You said -

"The other thing that looks desperate is to mention the litigation yet again. The ‘dividend’ from that has disappeared Lyn."

My reply to this -

"Litigation in the yearly update to the 31st March mentioned only that it was lifted. This RNS clarified and confirmed the legal proceedings were completed."

Clearly no repetition by the CEO or any intention to capitalise on repeated references to litigation. Again you have no foundation of truth.

You said -

"They need possibly several fundraising’s in the next year or more to get through this period."

My reply to this -

"Further fundraisings were only mentioned in the last paragraph of the year ending 31st March update - going concern. This was only in the context of a possibility within the next 12 months. I repeat, a going concern paragraph is a requirement applied to all companies under stock market rules for the protection of the public."

You clearly had no evidence that multiple placings would definitely occur, and you inferred that these placings were somehow imminent. I on the other hand, made no claim whatsoever that there would be no further placings. I did in fact make clear an additional placing could take place withn 12 months, as stated in the going concern. As I have already said, a going concern is subject to a multitude of variables that could determine whether or not a placing would take place. It is not a given, and because it is stated within a going concern should not be taken as a given. More, I'm sure, will be mentioned at the AGM to clarify this position.

Sorry, your already in the deepest hole. If I bury you any deeper they will never find you.

Go on Sorcerer answer the questions.

Come on guys, you all sound like lambs going to the slaughter. Dibs has already shown his colours a number of times and nothing he's said has any credibility whatsoever, and yet you all predictably react to his every word.

The recent update was up until the 31st March 2018. Figures mentioned up to 30th September were projections only (40% increase). Todays RNS was confirmation that those projections were accurate and correct (45% increase).

Litigation in the yearly update to the 31st March mentioned only that it was lifted. This RNS clarified and confirmed the legal proceedings were completed.

Further fundraisings were only mentioned in the last paragraph of the year ending 31st March update - going concern. This was only in the context of a possibility within the next 12 months. I repeat, a going concern paragraph is a requirement applied to all companies under stock market rules for the protection of the public.

You may have noticed the price closed yeasterday at 8.10 - 8.30 but opend this morning at 8.75 mid. Now showing 40 points - 4.5% down at 8.20 - 8.50 in reality is up on yesterday.

The US has just suffered the largest two day drop in its history and our FTSE 100 took major hits because of it. That's why we are at this price combined with the fact that we are within a placing makes matters worse. However, everything is short lived and stabilisation is but a matter of course. Again I say be patient.

By the way my surplus cash found a wonderful price of 7.7p

Goggins - your are obviously someone who takes the p**ss as a matter of course. Only part of Illuminas patent was infringed from what I can remember, so the appeal court could have quite easily taken us into a completely different direction on that point. Regardless of this fact, the BOD has led this company into the formation of an internationally accepted group through the most adverse conditions, under the constraints of litigation both contractually and financially. During this time they have conducted all business dealings and acquisitions with the full backing of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, who stood by Premaitha from the outset (so much for their thoughts on infringement). Are you also saying Genoma going bust was their fault. My god, I think I've heard everything. Putting all that aside, I join you in the disappointment of the markets reluctance to move the price after the settlement, however, your bitterness should not allow your thoughts to be twisted away from a positive outcome. I am very much convinced of Premaitha's success, we just have to be patient.

I can't believe I'm hearing all this. You all are supposedly LTH's with full knowledge of how the company operates but talk as if you are newcomers with grievances against the BOD because the price has just dropped 30 points. I told you all the price would challenge 9p as part of the placing phase so this is not unexpected, and there is nothing wrong with this drop if you know what the reason for the temporary drop is. You've got to admit, we were all definitely taken aback by the way the settlement deal was announced. Took everyone by surprise including the BOD. £1m for the settlement left them with £300,000, insufficient to operate the business, so the placing was the inevitable consequence. To sum up, the BOD achieved the deal we all hoped for and were then forced into a placing because of it. Maybe someone could explain how this should have been handled differently..

To some extent I agree with TW, options are an incentive to drive the company forward, however that's about as far as I agree on this point. When a director is offered options the company isn't at that point giving anything away. In fact in this case Jeffrieys 10p shares could be undercut by purchasing them at 9.5p today. If on the other hand the price increases to 20p, he then has the option to purchase at 10p, and to be honest, who gives a hoot if he does. The company has performed well enough to raise the market price to 20p, so why not, he's done his job, I'm also sitting at 20p and have made the same profit as he has, what's the fuss. Maybe we should all think about how this guy got to the position with which the opportunity arose to get the options, instead of bashing anyone who might be seen as getting an incentivised freeby.