Member Info for GF123

Scinv. Serious question. Why are you here? You don’t hold shares yet you are desperate to talk down Sclp. Anyone would have thought you had actually gone short on Sclp and are desperately trying to convince others not to buy but sell. That’s a lot of effort when you don’t hold any shares. Are you the bio police in disguise?

What’s that I smell. Is it scinv, simon no. It’s bul**h*t. Keep plugging away. It’s fun watching. Anyone for news? ATB

Small top up buy ahead of news. ATB

Interesting late trades. News anyone???? ATB

Suspect he may well be making a new profile shortly. ATB

Si you almost sound desperate. Maybe you need a break.! If Sclp is a scam maybe you need to lobby redmile and vulpes. They own way more than any of us.

Si. Yes I do own it. And if it works out I’ll drop you an email at work. Like I say you and your alter ego’s. Might need a new profile soon mate. ATB

“Except it has become to me perfectly clear that no one here is more experienced than I am. Like it or not (not a comment for you Bermuda) that's how I think it is.”

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲🥲

That’s the funniest think you have ever said!

You clearly don’t have a clue.

Berm.

I think your post highlights the complexity.

But I believe there must be a value attributed for any IP transfer from a parent to a subsidiary.

And you use the term impossible to know.

Yes that’s my point it’s all about the details and until the details are known no one outside company knows.

Which is exactly why I am setting out a rebuttal to negative posts by some on here.

I personally think this is nothing but good for all current share holders. Because these platforms are interconnected as you have set out.

When we know we may be happy. It’s all about the risk appetite and I’m happy to see what happens. You either trust BOD or you don’t. I do so I’m happy.

ATB

Mia. It is correct. You can’t transfer an asset to a subsidiary without a value being attributed from subsidiary to parent. Like I say. Wait for the details. ATB

I did say earlier but I believe this is why Sath clearly stated he couldn’t discuss the current value of Mabs because it was commercially sensitive. I.e they may be trying to agree that value.

It’s also possible that 100% of the existing future value from the current Genmab deals could be passed through to SCLP.

The point is until we know the terms of the deal no one knows.

So saying what has been said by others is clearly rubbish, which is why I’m calling it out!

ATB

Berm.

Not as simple as that.

Think about it. It’s a corporate transaction. The board must transfer the assets of an IP to a subsidiary. They can’t do that for nothing!

They must attribute a value for that transfer. Having identified the value you then need to set out the terms.

My point is you can’t transfer an asset to a subsidiary and then just dilute the subsidiary with no value back to the parent company.

I’m reading other posts here that clearly are incorrect because corporate law doesn’t work that way. Otherwise any board could just transfer their IP with out impunity to a subsidiary and then “buy” out that subsidiary (note directors of new co) for not a lot and parent co is left holding nothing. Major litigation issues.

No im afraid there is rubbish being spouted here and there is clearly a lack of understanding on the corporate side by some.

What is happening here is clearly the need to transfer IP to GT from Sclp as part of a future deal. We don’t know the details of the deal.

The news when it arrives will give the details of the deal. Including the value of the IP transfer and the terms of that transfer.

IMO.

ATB

Scinv. With logic like that when it rains it’s never going to be sunny again! Keep trying you really need more robust tactics than that. Come news in July on scope you will be gone. Just like your alter ego’s.

Whilst our resident genius is musing. Maybe he can pose the following corporate question. What is GT paying SCLP to transfer the IP? Hint. Sath:-“I can’t talk about the current value of Mabs. It’s commercially sensitive “. So like I said before. Don’t listen to the noise. Wait for the news. ATB

The attempts to spin this are funny.

All payment go to the new co. SCLP own newco 100%. SCLP & the current shareholders of SCLP will benefit 100%. Until the equity position changes in new co SCLP get 100% of any benefits from Mabs. Remember 2 Mabs are already being progressed by Genmab and as such need NO funding by the two existing deals that will transfer to newco. There might even be some kind of management fee too back to SCLP on the transfer? Sath said today he couldn't discuss values but the deals are already potentially worth £1.2b. Phil also said they are getting consistent updates from Genmab. I think someone even asked when next milestones are met and the question wasn't clarified. I guess that's part of the confidentiality issue.

Everything else is speculation. NOT as SCINV is presenting as fact. Until further news any other suggestion is just rubbish. We might be watching another bombing mission in that SCINV wants you to look right where in reality SCLP drop the bomb from the left. And if your those looking right you miss out.

I think the clues are clear and lots is clearly happening all at once. The presentation today gives a lot of clarity IMO.

ATB

I would also add why, in reply to your posts and others elsewhere, why would you need to massively dilute the shares in the new co if the deals you already have in place are already taking part of this platform forward already and you also have interest to further partner other MABS. SC is trying. But anyone should see the flaw in his current argument.

ATB

If you think it's not important. Don't worry. Others think it is. ATB

Ruck.

Well I've told you they are easy. It's a legal agreement between SCLP and their new co. Happens a lot. I've done it two or three times myself. But crack on and try and find a problem. Your problem is Ruck is the corporate law issue. Why would you split assets your own if you just intend to sit on them. The answer is of course, you don't!

As we have seen with SCLP MABS are easy to do deals. Vaccines need lots more data.

All the answers are there if you choose to understand them. Have fun.

ATB

Ruck

Can a rephrase your Question?

I'm in big trouble Bermuda because this actually looks very positive and I am struggling to find the negatives. I tried saying dilution of new co and SCLP will end up with NO IP and NO value but even I can see that's just a plain silly argument. So can you try and give me some info that I can turn into a further negative?

Problem is Ruck there isn't one! Everything can easily be transferred by Scancell to a subsidiary Scancell own 100%. It's a simply deed of transfer of all IP and deals. As someone said earlier on question of who is working for the co will be an insight. Any this is jsut simple legal documents.

Like I said earlier bet even the current two deals are also assignable! Actually, even that doesn't really matter legally if they are not because even these deals can be transferred to a new co they own through the deed of transfer.

I said early 1+1=2. Only question now is when?

ATB

Bet those two existing deals have an assignment clause. ATB