We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Morning Brondby…indeed…hopefully puts that one to bed now (there was a precedent in that a previous placing didn’t have an RNS on admission date but I’d lost the will to bother pointing that out :-) )
Just for completeness, Tim also confirmed the following as it wasn’t wholly clear in the RNS:
1) MoU signed 1st April (so 30 days from there)
2) The 120 days applies from the 1st of April, not the point at which the $100k would be paid.
Hi TT, just following on from your concerns at the weekend, I’ve had the following from Tim Metcalfe this morning…
“The placing has been completed. The announcement on 26 March 2024 contained full details of the placing and no further announcement by the company is required or expected on completion (unless the date of admission or something else in connection with the placing changes, which it didn’t). The placing completed and the shares were admitted as expected on 11 April…”
I do tbh OAPK… 😀
- They placed at 2.1p 10 months ago, albeit for a lesser amount, and they are materially further forward…so not as if they have had difficulty raising in that range, and although the markets are weak I think they are an improvement on last year where you saw huge discounts in this sector (FAB, APTA etc…)
- I personally think they were caught out re the climb to 2.6p which I think was down to retail investors off the back of the Cizzle Bio link coupled with an expectation of the clinical test results being imminent. A week before the placing, the SP was sat at 2.2p.
- They’ve not declared who they have taking the placing but if we assume TR-1 admin is accurate, you’d think the funds are coming from a small base of investors…time will tell if we get a TR-1, e.g. doesn’t take a lot for Martin Lang to drop below 9% given he’s at 9.03%… you’d expect those investing are closer to knowing latest position relative to retail PIs (prior to the DT interview last week)
Just imho…
Hi TT,
I think there’s a big difference between catching someone on the hoof and having a quick chat (and picking up on brief info threads as a result) vs expecting a call back from someone under NDA with a company this side of the pond, to call back a random investor, from Cayman for a chat 24 hrs later, but don’t think we’ll align on thinking there…
With regards to the last couple of weeks, I don’t think a lot has changed…expected a placing (if not using the E3 fund), the key part for me is that there was unnecessary self harm through poor comms - if they had telegraphed where they were at, it would have sat comfortably with investors (or at least the majority) rather than having a 6 month blackout, not keeping PIs informed, and the first comms is a placing…staggering naivety in my view and has damaged AS’s credibility, but I suspect he’s well aware of that after the noise over the last couple of weeks.
As a result, I think we’re probably 4-6 months behind where I thought they were. I had no expectations of it being in market quickly, and still think that could be 12-18 months away - the timescale between confirmatory data, insurance codes and launching shouldn’t be underestimated - but the material news of clinical data which I saw as a SP driver I considered imminent, but is probably 4 months away now (could see it linking into the timescales of the confirmed contract, but just a personal view).
I don’t think there is a lot of doubt that it has the right performance…they will have tested it on Jess multiple times already and know the figures are compelling, but the deposit of $100k will cement that view as any group of HNWIs aren’t going to stump up millions without knowing a concept is backed up by robust data, even if we aren’t privy to it at this point in time.
Was going to comment on the commercial agreement which I think is stronger than before but Brondby has commented already - the key piece here, and I try to be balanced even though you think I am very bullish - is that success after the clinical data is wholly dependent on the credentials of as yet unknown investors in the US. You would like to think Bill B knows the right people to support an initiative like this, and they’re not bankrolling it without having the capabilities to maximise market success, but without knowing their capabilities we’ll be somewhat in the dark…but that will be down the line from having the key inflections of signed agreement and clinical data.
Hi TT…I’m not sure you’d expect anything different…
While Bill B might be working with private individuals, and there might be an element of naivety… Cizzle are listed, it appears they are working with Bio-Techne (US jurisdiction) still so will be NDAs in place that Cizzle would be nervous about breaching, 1) as they couldn’t afford the legal fees and 2) it jeopardises commercial discussions…
If he had talked openly…think you/me might have questioned professionalism etc… so an element of damned if they do damned if they don’t…
A heady £450 traded yesterday…
I assume this will stay flat for 2-3 weeks yet - would think the $100k deposited end of the month should be announced around annual results time (assuming it’s late April/early May) and hopefully will be coupled with a clear forward looking statement around mAb scaling up etc… AS did mention there would be an announcement re mAbs partners “fairly soon”.
You would think it’s the 3-4 month period after that when clinical test results are complete, and the MOU is converted to a contract agreement that we’ll see significant positive momentum return. Hopefully see some wider updates re patents, LFT, other tests etc… in the interim…
I would assume, at some point they’ll state they’re going to use Ella for the 96 well ELISA test, so ongoing progress with Bio-Techne, given they say they are still working with them.
https://www.bio-techne.com/instruments/simple-plex/cost-advantages
Re the US, given what is needed there, it’s going to cost many millions, and while there seems to be confidence HNWI are lined up, can’t envisage us getting any real detail on that given it’s a private entity and Cizzle are just the licence provider. Would be useful to know the credentials of those who will deliver on this in market (you would expect them to be already in discussions given how long Bill B has been working on this).
I still can’t fully square the circle on the placing - stating they had previously budgeted to do it themselves in the US, and hence needed funds, doesn’t align with the time lead for a placing and when Cizzle Bio Inc was set up - only thing I can think of is:
1. that it was leverage while terms of that agreement was being finalised, and more likely
2. You need working capital while that deal is being negotiated over the coming months to maintain momentum, as could be another 3-4 months before funds land.
LungLife are aiming to use AI post CT scan.
1) Diagnostic test (eg Cizzle)
2) If likely lung cancer, CT scan - clinical pathway
3) Use of prognostic tools to determine best route forward, where LungLife AI play…
Would still be nice to get the test out this year though!
When someone has pumped the share for 6 months (they know a lot about Ciz), then flips narrative, just game playing…
At least with someone like Chris H, he took grief for pumping it and selling but has been straight, came back in again when thought it was undervalued…
Just a wider bit of lung cancer news re treatment for anyone interested…
Britain’s biggest drugmaker AstraZeneca has received a boost, as its blockbuster cancer drug Imfinzi showed positive results as a treatment for aggressive lung cancer in a late-stage clinical trial.
The drug demonstrated a “statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement” in both the overall survival of patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer, and the survival of of patients without the disease progressing.
Small cell lung cancer is a highly aggressive form of cancer that typically recurs and progresses rapidly despite initial response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, with only 15%-30% of these patients alive five years after diagnosis, AstraZeneca said.
Susan Galbraith, executive vice president of oncology research & development at the drugmaker, said:
These exciting results build on the transformative efficacy of Imfinzi in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer and demonstrate the potential to bring a curative-intent immunotherapy treatment to this earlier-stage setting of small cell lung cancer for the first time.
These data, together with the PACIFIC data in unresectable, Stage III non-small cell lung cancer, underscore the pioneering role of Imfinzi in the treatment of early lung cancer following chemoradiotherapy.
After ramping up research spending and through a series of smart bets, AstraZeneca has built up a portfolio of cancer drugs that accounts for almost a quarter of the company’s annual revenues.
Corepath are just a front end oncology lab who have accreditation to run LDTs, they’re not geared up to run operations in the US… don’t think that was ever the expectation, they’re just do the analysis of blood tests received from care providers - assume they will now purchase mAbs etc… from Cizzle Inc rather than UK entity??
Agree, think it could have taken it into the 3’s…hey ho. All seems positive, and a bit more clarification - still some areas not 100% clear but a massive improvement - extended interview and no background context around lung cancer prevalence etc…
In terms of next steps, we know they’ll announce by end of the month whether the MOU is progressing as they’ll need to stump up the $100k bond. Also suggests there’ll be an update re antibodies referenced to commercial launch, so that’ll help. Hopefully that will also reference that scaling is done and they can get the clinical test completed.
Curiously in terms of markets, called out rest of APAC, aside from China, alongside Europe/UK so we’ll see…
I think we know we aren’t as far forward as anticipated but conversely seems more robust / resilient, and he did keep pushing shareholder comms so hopefully that sees an improvement in terms of updates…
At least no funding needs anytime soon given £600k won’t be used for US, have $2,4mn from the US minimum if it gets signed, no dev costs for US (so working capital should be v modest going forward) and c £1mn in CDT shares…
Given the US licencing model sees minimum commits, dev costs covered and equity model, does give a benchmark to other markets re negotiations…
Initial thoughts…
- Refers to fully funded in the US as if it’s a done deal
- US business would fund clinical trials, inferring they won’t have to spend the placing funds (seems strange they are so close together in timing, whether it was belt and braces, as needed to ensure funds in place if US deal didn’t happen) 🤷
- Referenced still working with Bio-Techne plus others, with different mAbs for different product formats. Announcement re mAbs being used for commercial launch due soon.
- More detail in this one, direct result of reaction to last weeks interview, and emphasis on improved comms.
- Still using Directors talk…
https://www.***************************/cizzle-biotechnology-usa-and-canada-agreement-major-milestone-video/4121150074
“…if the US HNWI's don't like the look of it”
You could apply that to any company on any market…
Personally, given a 4 week timescale to paying a deposit, don’t think they’re starting from first base, but time will tell…
Comparing CIZ to CDT is a bit abstract though…
One is valued at c $8mn, close to revenue generation, the other is valued at a heady $230mn and c 5-10 yrs from launch of assets…if successful…huge cash requirement and a low strike rate re success…
“ PI’s are taking profit below the placing price”…Not sure any long term PIs are taking profit at this price…
“To think they thought that RNS would create enough volume for Placees to flip to PI’s to catch their bag”
Last time they raised, no TR-1s announced so either poor admin or a lot went to existing holders so ratios stated the same. If you were giving placees scope to flip, you don’t announce news in the Easter hols, no one around…
That’s one view Bufflehead…
Alternative one is that Cizzle’s hand has got a lot stronger…
Cizzle not reliant on Bio-Techne, just use their machine…bio-Techne get 80% of their revenues from consumables (mAbs / reagents), not selling protein simple machines.
They play in the diagnostics field, and a company going to market in their backyard…and not needing them…
All depends on the lens through which you view things…
Like the Bill B comments at the bottom of the RNS…
“Through a strong appreciation of the potential value of the CIZ1B biomarker in improving patient survival rates we are very excited by the opportunity to secure an exclusive license from Cizzle for the North American market. Our investor group sees this as an important opportunity to make a major difference to lung cancer survival rates and we have already made progress in developing further relationships with major cancer hospitals as we seek endorsement from clinicians and key opinion leaders."
Good update…
- Minimum of £2.6mn over next 30 months (£0.6m placing plus £2m in fees so working capital sorted)
- Cizzle Bio Inc carrying all dev costs in US, incentive for them to get it to market quickly as paying regardless given minimum fixed fees
- 10% equity stake and assume get payment for mAbs etc…
- Would expect new royalty agreement to be signed to reflect all dev costs being covered by Cizzle Bio Inc
- Above suggests the test works which should offset the reaction to the Proteogenix concerns last week
- On Bill B to bring on board US investment and convert MoU to full commercial agreement in the next month…
Immunotherapies aren’t vaccines…it’s part of a treatment programme for people with cancer.
There is a huge need to be met here, and many hundreds of companies playing their part in trying to improve survival rates.
Early diagnosis will be a key part of that for many years to come.
Hi TT…all pretty much supposition at this point in absence of confirmed info from Cizzle, and with you that they should be providing greater transparency (even with context of NDAs, IP protection etc….)
On the Bio-Techne RNS- I work a lot with our investor relations team (EUR 20bn MC), nothing goes out without multiple checks, and that’s in the UK, US must be even more conscientious. If they say it works, I think that’s a given - granted sensitivity / specificity / PPV / NPV will show how efficacious it is…but they’re not putting their name to it unless it’s comparable with industry standards…