Member Info for hamila01

OTM - Thanks but I really don’t need ‘Interpreting English Language’ lessons from you. Maybe you need some instead?

I quite clearly understood the meaning from what Tim said and it was a hint to possible timings. Suits your narrative though to ignore this information….again.

GLA LTH’s!

Selective listening OTM…..again!

In one of the interviews, Tim quite clearly said about a deal in 2026 and right at the end of the sentence he added “in the New Year”.

To give some balance that could be any time in Q1 and not necessarily January.

Oh and to your point about extended due diligence, any extended due diligence could be seen as a positive and a bullish indicator that a deal (or deals) could be big. I’d fully expect any potential partner/buyer to do extensive checks on a potential game changer.

GLA LTH’s!

Nettles - good points, however, big pharma has a greater preference for takeovers when it comes to later stage (phase II/III) drugs. Licensing is the preferred approach for early stage drugs where the risks of failure are greater.

GLA LTH’s!

Lanstead still have 70m warrants at 2p so they haven't taken all of their cards off the table yet......

Rookie - Interesting how my post got rubbished by the trollers when all I did was calculate an average value for the 5 pharma deals that Professor posted. Those are real values that big pharma have been prepared to pay.

Doesn't matter what OTM and friends think ultimately. I've said it before but it's worth repeating - It's all about what big pharma thinks of the asset and how much they're prepared to pay for it.

GLA LTH's!

LLM - Go lose yourself on the same journey as OTM!

GLA LTH's!

OTM - Go lose yourself troll!

GLA LTH's!

Thanks Professor!

Just taking an average of those 5 deals, I get an $8.1bn figure. Dividing by approx. 600m shares then gives us an offer share price of $14.14.

Now just supposing a big pharma was interested enough in P140, would they be prepared to take a chance and put in a low ball offer when they don’t necessarily know what their rivals might also be offering? And do you think Tim and team when negotiating aren’t aware of some of these valuations?

I’d be amazed if there isn’t a bidding war….

GLA LTH’s!

OTM - Yes and No to your questions. Don't mind you wasting your own time in spouting drivel. Do have more of an issue when my own time is wasted reading the drivel.....

GLA LTH's!

Very well put CauldStream!

Ultimately it comes down to one thing - Does P140 work? And if it does work, what is it's worth to a large pharma?

GLA LTH's!

The LSE only have themselves to blame for how AIM has lost credibility. In all of this, I attach less blame to the trolls and bots because they're just exploiting the situation. If legislators and FCA had done a better job in the first place there'd be less opportunity to manipulate.

And I also blame some company management as well for not taking a stand and challenging some of the false (and in some cases libellous) statements made on forums.

GLA LTH's!

Juxta - It doesn't matter at all how many employees IMM has or what it's turnover is. The key question is whether or not they have an asset that other organisations may want. Asset rich, cash poor is the saying that springs to mind here.

And to add some balance, I'm not overly impressed with Tim's salary. I'd far prefer it if he was awarded share options instead of a salary.

Totally! Seeing that RNS would definitely focus minds and perhaps generate some FOMO especially with the diagnostics element….

GLA LTH’s

Roger65 - I'm not Tim's biggest fan but some of the things he's had to do have likely been out of necessity. Imagine having to say the company is just about to run out of money? Do you think anyone sitting on the other side of the negotiating table is going to cut a favourable deal on hearing that news?

He's managed to keep the lights on and we're on the cusp of a deal/deals that will result in life changing money for some people.

GLA LTH's!

HullTiger - Sounds like someone is p***ed off that IMM might have even more interest in P140....

The more (serious) interest there is just increases the chances of a bidding war which in turn improves the offer.

GLA LTH's!

No Chinese or Japanese pharma appear in the global top 10 but if one of those countries did want to shake the established pharma order up then buying (as opposed to negotiating a licensing deal) would be a reasonably quick way to do it in less than 5 years (p3 trials, approvals, etc). And if a disruptor did want to use P140 for that end then they might be prepared to pay quite generously for it.

But on the other hand a disruptor company might struggle to get the finances together unless Chinese based. Large pharma would find it relatively easy to tap into a credit line and complete a deal quickly....

I personally think we'll see a top 10 pharma buying the whole operation. IMM would be quite easy to integrate into an existing business being a small operation with minimal headcount. The only caveat as roger mentioned might be that Avion deal.

Tim is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Can you imagine the howls of derision from the usual suspects if there'd been stony silence going into December?

Some of his 'lies' have been necessary just to keep IMM in the game. Can you imagine what would have happened if he'd said IMM was out of money? Any half decent negotiator would have driven an even harder bargain. Do I think he's done everything well - an emphatic NO but I'm also of the opinion that once the deal hits, we'll forget all of his shortcomings.

roger65 - You're assuming that big pharma are predisposed to closing down rivals when in fact they're probably more inclined to look at the financial opportunities, especially if that rival can provide greater payback than an existing offering provides. And in fact I'd have to say that would be an especially s**tty attitude to take by a big pharma because sabotaging a potential solution (besides ignoring the financial upside) is condemning a positive treatment outcome for millions (or hundreds of millions) of sufferers of autoimmune conditions.

There WILL be a deal and I also believe the partner/buyer will ignore Tim's shortcomings in favour of the technology and it's potential.

GLA LTH's!

Agreed and he completed his sentence about something happening in 2026 with 'in the new year'. I love that comment.

I'm increasingly more confident of a takeover here because:

1) As the number of interested (NDA signing) parties increases, the FOMO factor ratchets up amongst those same parties if they are satisfied that the science works.

2) The shorter the negotiation period, the more pressure there will be on those interested parties to get a deal closed.

OTM - "Odd that it starts with a final message. Typical poor amateur quality."

So glad of the poor editing as Tim's comment "something will come in 2026 in the new year" appeared near the start.

GLA LTH's!

Funny how it's only the bears opinion that matters despite the fact that the bulls are in the majority. And also funny that they are very quick to criticise when bulls provide evidence to back up arguments but happy to promote untruths as fact.....

GLA LTH's!