Member Info for GuitarMusic

Wigwammer - yes, that's right. A re-negotiation with Avion makes sense if they still hold any rights at all (which some here dispute) - they don't have rights to the diagnostic tool and recent patent (I think) so they can't just rely on what they have already. But IMM have WAY more leverage in said re-negotiation if they are also able to sell the rights in the US for dozens of other indications to other parties. Conversely, if Avion have all exclusive rights to the US for ALL indications then they can already bury P140 in the US if they choose, or if IMM are being difficult in licencing the newer tech. Not that they would (there's no benefit in it), but that's A LOT of leverage. They're not competing with any big pharma in this deal. As I see it anyway.

I also meant to say, the worst thing that can happen to our investments is that the company folds and we lose the lot - a risk taken by all investors. The next worst is to be out when the big rise hits (+500% or whatever). It may well drift lower from here (although Lanstead are no longer selling) but I've decided not to chase a 10% - 20% gain and risk missing the main reason I'm invested here which is the rise on a licensing deal, the rise through the next trials and eventually dividends from royalties... or a buyout deal (which will happen suddenly when it does). DYOR and GLA.

Xviolet - you raise an important question about Avion's rights in US and whether they are exclusive. The answer has a significant impact on any deal as Avion either has the whole US market sewn up, or there are (say) 49 other indications that competitors can go for (and deal with IMM for). But I wouldn't take your AI answer seriously unless you can see the source. AI is trained to avoid an 'i don't know' type of answer, it would rather guess - that's why you sometimes see crazy AI errors in the news. I haven't been able to find confirmation of exclusivity either way. Do let us know if it gives you a verifiable source.

Also, Tim quoted 'year of delivery' in Jan / Feb time following research confirmation of the diagnostic tool and type M identification, so 11 months still to go. Probably thought that was plenty of time. But it turned out to be wrong. Shame - we have to wait a bit longer.

If this notion of a big pharma burying P140 'the disruptor' is considered a risk by IMM, I'd imagine negotiations would include safeguards to prevent that. Getting P140 to patients, and a lucrative deal for shareholders, are their 2 primary objectives. I think achieving just 1 of those would be considered unacceptable (selling it off to be buried). I, for one, can't buy into this narrative that the IMM team are a nest of snakes.

I’ve been here since 2017 but only started sharing my thoughts recently. Hope Mrs halfbutt’s stress levels have returned to normal :)

...the last line should have read...

'Guitar - waiting for interviews and wishing I was on a boat with OSD :)'

IMM have had a very difficult 7 years from phase III trial failure, through difficult / desperate fund raises with death spiral Lanstead deals, but the asset is 'ground-breaking' and potentially worth billions. This combination presents a rare and amazing opportunity where the SP is low because of the history but the potential is enormous. But is the CEO honest? My theory, yes and no. I think he's been flexible with the truth but it's to achieve IMM's long-term goals, not fiddle true investors.

Suppose Tim's motive is to get P140 to market for the medical benefit of patients. and the financial benefit of investors. And by 'investors', I mean proper investors who are here to see this through, not flip-flop traders (shareholders, at the point this goes to market, and maybe a few other stops on the way, will be well rewarded). To this end, I believe IMM leadership has, and will, do and say what they need to do and say to keep IMM afloat and get the data it needs to demonstrate P140's commercial viability and be attractive to potential partners and reach IMM's LONG TERM objectives. Such as....

1. change IMM leadership (4-5 years ago?)

2. re-organise the company to streamline costs and focus on key commercial assets

3. sacrifice dilution to get funds and keep IMM going

4. take a placing even after they said they didn't intend to (Feb 25)

5. create a diagnostic tool to de-risk asset for future trials and generate additional value

6. prove the method of action to provide assurances to potential partners

7. file the 20 yr patent creating value and attractiveness.

8. update and enhance website

9. maximise funding from sharing agreement to extend runway and remove negotiating weakness from cash pressures.

10. remove artificial deadline (end of 2025) to remove negotiating weakness from time pressures.

11. Pursue the best deal, not the quickest deal.

For sure, there's been some tough decisions but to me, particular through the hard times, they've done what they've had to to survive and get P140 to patients. I just can't see this being to scam pi's to pay for their lucrative salaries.

It's not a big deal if shareholders hold a paper-loss for a while, until the end goal is reached - but faith is needed. It's only the uncommitted and traders after a fast turnaround who don't like this. If (BIG IF - I'm making no accusations) Tim was knowingly over-optimistic on the timeline and boosted the share price and raised more cash, it's benefitted IMM and, consequently IMM's shareholders who are committed. For me, understanding the need for IMM to balance short-term requirements to survive and long-term goals, all these events fit into place.

I know many posters are angry and frustrated at the delay, and now see Tim as untrustworthy after such confident and clear expectations. You might be right, perfectly valid view. This rings true to me and is why I hold. GLA

Guitar - waiting for interviews and wishing I was on

OTM - thanks for a good-tempered expression of your view, which I respect. P140's commercial viability lies in it being safe, effective, easy to diagnose and easy to treat (and, as I understand, relatively cheap to make).

Safety - lots at publicly known data to support this. There is no further progress needed for this.

Efficacy - there is some publicly known data to support efficacy (Phase IIb and in the detailed analysis of the 2018 Phase III results).

Further efficacy data (particularly on type 'm', along with a deeper understanding of the MOA and the ease of diagnosis, all confirmed by Jackson labs) is all in the dataroom and is not known to us, so we cannot judge how convincing it is. Tim and Seb know, and you may make the observation that they were over-excited in their interviews and mis-communicated, but I think the chances of that are slim - they are professional people. The dataroom must support their conclusions and, if it does, then P140 has such a huge advantage over its competitors (well documented here by other posters). Why would a big pharma not want it?

I believe the Tims' strategy is to make the most out of a deal announcement - i.e. maximise its impact on the share price with the exposure it will get. If you wanted to do that these 3 actions would be high on your to-do list in preparation.

1. Update and re-vamp the website ready to impress new visitors.

2. Increase IMM awareness amongst ii's (enlist a well-connected new NED).

3. Ensure Lanstead's constant selling pressure is over (wait 'til December).

So all this makes sense to me for both a P140 deal and a 'left-field' one to come in mid December after a final bids/discussions early December. Discussions not just about £££'s but the clinical path to commercialisation too along with the Avion complication. Takes time, particularly with a number of bidders.

LANSTEAD

AdamKhan's posts this morning, though AI generated, has some use. For Lanstead to totally sell the remaining 3% by end of Nov means selling nearly 3 times the rate they have been. I don't think so - more likely they've decided to hold some of their profit from the sharing agreement in shares for a deal announcement or beyond. Also, to exercise and sell any of their 70m warrants now, when they're already selling plenty, would be difficult to accomplish and undoubtedly degrade their own value. I suspect they want to save them for the long term value.

On the other hand, Tim, Tim and Seb and the others could all just be telling whopping and illegal porkie pies and none of this is happening, which would be an impressively massive web of deceit they'd have conjured... GLA

Scrodingerscat, that's very interesting and thanks for posting. Where can we see the full agreement?

Spantrout, people are vexed about the Avion aspect because they don't fully expect the 2019 contract to be terminated - they (me included) are uncertain about that, and the outcome has a huge impact on the size and complexity of any P140 licencing deal. It perhaps alters a perceived risk / reward ratio. It seems plausible to me, as you say, no moneys have changed hands so there could be a clear termination clause, but I suppose I place I higher chance in there not being than you do. I hope you are right.

All of that said, the 'Avion complication' does not alter my investment strategy because I think the whole thing will still be very successful, so it's still a strong buy / hold strategy, maybe top slice a big rise following deal announcement. IMO GLA

If it helps the new website says this under the 'Why invest in ImmuPharma' section... "Strong IP protection and an established partnership with Avion Pharmaceuticals." How will IMMs relationship with Avion look post-deal? Might not be decided yet and undoubtedly market sensitive IMO.

Fre1, yes. It is also key whether Avion have the EXCLUSIVE rights to other indications in the US (this is unclear in the public info). If they don't they're in a far weaker position. To explain - if they have exclusive rights to P140 for Lupus, but not the other indications, and a new partner is able to also put P140 in the US market (same drug but in a different box, for a different indication, or lots of other indications) then Avion have competition, maybe far stronger competition. Then you risk price wars and the like.

Pokerchips, i think designing a trial to maximise probability of success has mostly been done. IMM are offering a de-risked asset. The choice Tim was referring to, if memory serves, was about which indication to trial first, or do they run multiple indications in parallel (the 20 year patent clock is ticking), or one super-large one with multiple indications, or is it possible to do a large trial of just Type M patients regardless of the auto-immune indication with a view to gaining statistical significance treating Type M's and approval on that basis. He's leaving this to the new partner and if Avion are still involved, they would still need to collaborate on the trial strategy and gaining approval. My point was that the Avion contract complicates the new deal somewhat, this example is the simplest iteration of that, hence we should expect it'll take a while.

It may be that Avion conducting a Phase III trial for Lupus as per the 2019 agreement is just a really inefficient way to progress now. We don't know the details, but I can see how this gets complicated...

Thanks for taking the time to share Oscar22,

Just to be clear, are you saying that you think Avion will have no rights on P140 in its updated form and their 2019 agreement with IMM can be ignored, i.e. any new deals can include U.S.? That would be the simplest and most lucrative outcome for IMM.

I've read back over the RNSs and can't see anything to confirm either way - I imagine any 'null-and-void' clauses to be in small print or the detail of general contract law that we don't know about, but I'm sure Tim does.

THE AVION COMPLICATION

In the event that Avion retains the exclusive rights to commercialise P140 in the US for Lupus (meaning no one else can) then the whole thing gets complicated. At the very least they will have an interest in how any new partner sees the path through clinical trial to commercialisation. Tim stated in an interview that the new partner would decide on clinical trial but where does that leave Avion's obligation to pay for the Phase III up to $25m?

If Avion's 'right to explore other indications in the US' is NOT exclusive then they will end up with competition on their hands from other Pharma selling the same thing with a label for something else but they'll know it can be used for Lupus. If it is exclusive and enforceable then they have the power to block the US market entirely unless an acceptable deal can be reached.

It could go lots of ways but what I consider most likely is a 3-way deal that either settles with Avion ($$$'s) to forego their rights in US or they reach a collaborative deal where Avion's terms are re-negotiated to include the diagnostic test and provide clear commercial boundaries and the pathway through clinical trials.

I can see why this might take a while to sort out, but I'm sure Tim is well aware of IMM's options and will secure a lucrative deal for IMM that will also map out the path to commercialisation. Just my own speculative thoughts to add to the discussion. Happy to be corrected on anything or to hear other's views :) GLA

Most of the way through October now. Looks like another £550k - £700k payment from Lanstead for Oct in the coffers.

Tim says they've proved it (strong words in science) in their own research and the independent Jackson Laboratories in USA have confirmed it. Type M auto-immune patients respond to P140. That's pretty solid to my mind, but there are information gaps in what they have made public, for good reason, making it very difficult to estimate the size of any deal for P140. All we've been given by Tim is 'chunky'.

From RNS of 13th Feb 25 re: fundraise and sharing agreement, IMM receive £268k each month based on a benchmark share price of 5p but it flexes with the SP. 13p is 2.6 times higher than 5p so the monthly payment will be 2.6 times higher. That's £697k. My guess is that September's payment will be a little lower, maybe around £600k without doing all the research of each day's closing price.

Sorry Mav, I can't see why Lanstead will want the sp lower, and how that will help exercise warrants. As sellers and holders they will want the SP high. Sales proceeds will be higher than their monthly payments to IMM, with higher profits at a higher price. Do you know something that contradicts this?

I don't think anyone on here knows for definite what Lanstead already know for sure, if Tim will come through on his promise of a deal in 2025 (though seems highly likely) or what size said deal will be. We DO know that Lanstead have gradually sold shares consistently for years because it's in TR-1s. We also know for sure that Lanstead have to make cash payments to IMM each month. It's reasonable to consider they may still be doing the same thing they've done for years, or, if they're certain of this deal, maybe they've paused selling and meeting cash payments with reserves. You're perfectly free to make your own mind up without reaching a consensus with everyone on this board. Personally, I think they sell shares to meet their monthly payments and save their considerable number of warrants for big win.

...actually, they already had 30m at that point so that'd be 500k - 550k shares a day on average, if they were to be fully sold up by end of nov.