Member Info for hamila01

Considering P140 is late stage, I’d be amazed if we don’t see a takeover deal offered.

GLA LTH’s!

2/2

### When Licensing Is Still Strongly Preferred

1. **Early-stage (preclinical/Phase I)**

Risk is high; most Big Pharma still licenses or options early assets rather than buying entire companies (e.g., hundreds of CRISPR, bispecific, or oligonucleotide deals).

2. **Non-core or geographically focused assets**

If the molecule is only relevant in China or Japan, companies like Novartis or Pfizer often license regional rights instead of buying the whole company.

3. **Cash preservation / balance sheet constraints**

After the 2022–2024 M&A wave, several large companies (Pfizer, BMS, Merck) now have elevated debt levels; licensing requires less cash upfront.

4. **Biotech-friendly capital markets**

When IPOs and follow-ons are easy (2020–early 2021), biotech boards reject takeovers and prefer to stay independent + license. When markets freeze (2022–2024), takeovers surge because biotech needs cash.

### Data Snapshot (2015–2025)

- Average upfront payment for Phase II/III licensing deals rose from ~$50–100M (2015) to $500M–$2B+ (2021–2024), making buyouts relatively more attractive.

- Total M&A value in biopharma:

– 2015: $200B (peak, driven by tax inversions)

– 2019: $250B+ (Celgene–BMS, etc.)

– 2023–2024: ~$150B but concentrated in ADC/neuro (still high deal count of $5–15B transactions).

- Licensing deal volume remains high for early assets, but the dollar value shifted dramatically toward M&A for late-stage/clinical assets.

### Bottom Line

- For de-risked, high-value assets (Phase III or commercial) in hot areas (oncology, neuroscience, immunology), Big Pharma now prefers takeover over licensing ≈70–80% of the time (rough estimate from deal patterns 2021–2025).

- For early-stage or non-strategic assets, licensing/options remain the default.

So the answer is: Yes, today pharmaceutical companies generally prefer takeovers over licensing deals when the asset is late-stage and highly strategic, but licensing is still dominant for early-stage or lower-priority programs. The pendulum has swung toward M&A compared with 10–15 years ago.

Out of curiosity I asked Grok the following question…. Do pharmaceutical companies prefer to takeover rather than sign a licensing deal?

And the answer it returned was this ….

1/2

So the answer is: Yes, today pharmaceutical companies generally prefer takeovers over licensing deals when the asset is late-stage and highly strategic, but licensing is still dominant for early-stage or lower-priority programs. The pendulum has swung toward M&A compared with 10–15 years ago.

Pharmaceutical companies do not universally prefer takeovers (M&A) over licensing deals — it strongly depends on the strategic situation, the asset's development stage, the company's size, and its overall pipeline needs. In practice, both approaches coexist, but trends and preferences have shifted over time.

### When Pharma Clearly Prefers Takeovers (M&A)

Big Pharma (Pfizer, Novartis, J&J, Merck, Roche, etc.) increasingly favors bolt-on or transformative acquisitions over pure licensing deals in certain scenarios:

1. **Late-stage or commercial assets**

Companies prefer full ownership when the drug is Phase III or already approved because:

- They capture 100% of economics instead of paying royalties (typically 10–30%) + milestones.

- They control commercial strategy, pricing, lifecycle management, and combinations with their own portfolio.

Examples: Pfizer–Seagen ($43B, 2023), AbbVie–ImmunoGen ($10B, 2023), BMS–Karuna ($14B, 2023).

2. **Platform technologies with multiple shots on goal**

ADC (antibody-drug conjugate), radioligand, gene-editing, or T-cell engager platforms are often bought entirely rather than licensed one asset at a time.

Rationale: Acquiring the platform gives multiple future products instead of paying royalties forever on someone else’s platform.

3. **Pipeline gaps & “String of pearls” exhaustion**

After 2015–2020, many mid-sized biotech companies refused low-ball licensing deals and held out for buyouts (or failed and went cheap). Big Pharma realized licensing late-stage assets had become too expensive upfront (sometimes >$2–3B upfront fees) and started buying instead.

4. **Tax & accounting advantages**

Acquired R&D is sometimes written off immediately (U.S. tax code changes post-2017 reduced this advantage, but it still exists in some jurisdictions), whereas licensing upfront fees are expensed.

Most likely Tim forgot to mention upfront payments when he answered that last question. Let's see the responses he gives in other interviews as it'd be very remiss of him as CEO of a pharma company not to be negotiating an upfront payment in a licensing deal. And any potential partner would most likely be expecting to pay an upfront fee if that's the case. For me, the interview responses were about as enthusiastic and confident as a CEO can be while involved in commercially sensitive negotiations.

Honestly, clutching at straws springs to mind with some of the deramper arguments..... I'll give them credit for persistence though.....

Wish I could double recommend that post Rookie1. That RNS was as positive as it could be and yes, Tim has definitely put his neck on the block and could quite easily have toned down the message.

I also get why some people will be sceptical about Tim's interviews, etc. Any rational LTH won't have been happy at times but we're mainly here because the P140 scientific proposition is strong and has potentially life changing value for us as shareholders and (let's not forget) patients.

GLA LTH's

Looking at the RNS, it's entirely possible that it's a method of shaking other potential partners/purchasers out of the woodwork OR focusing the minds on the existing interested parties to either submit an offer or to walk away. Just the comment about a number of top 10 global pharma's being interested will make the big boys think about the implications of missing out.

And I'd also expect to see another interview over the next few days from Tim. For the record, I'm not his biggest fan either but I also appreciate that this is a very busy time for IMM and really not surprised to see a delay. Anyone with real world experience of partner negotiating will know how complicated and time consuming it can be dealing with one let alone multiple potentially so I'm happy to cut the company some slack.

Disappointing that the timelines have slipped but not unexpected. I’d be less forgiving if I thought there’d been a deadline for offers/interest from potential partners but likely there wasn’t so anyone could have entered the data room at any time. And if so, this would easily cause a delay in a deal or deals being concluded. The negative take on his is that IMM caused the delay. It’s more likely to be the interested parties introducing delay.

And before anyone says IMM should be imposing early deadlines and signing a deal quickly, that at this stage would be detrimental to getting the best price. While it’s conjecture on my part, I’d be amazed if IMM allowed things to drag on past February without firmed up, best and final offers.

I’m very encouraged that a “number of” top 10 pharma are looking. This could be at least 2 or 3 and if the science is good, then it would be massively remiss of the top 10 to let this opportunity go by.

Still hoping someone comes in with a big offer and takes out IMM. And irrespective of what the RNS said, on the balance of probabilities at least one pharma will propose a takeover…..

GLA all LTH’s….

Yes. And even back in 2018 on the IMM chats there were debates on whether buys were buys or sells and sells were sells or buys. Just a shame that even after so long, the London Stock Exchange still doesn’t provide full transparency on trades…..

Totally CauldStream7. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as the value of IMM is most definitely in the science (and the scientific team). If the offer was £1 a share on buyout, that's still only approx. $800m to a big pharma. That's chicken feed considering the potential here.

Not sure I understand the argument where the value of the company is determined by the number of employees or market cap, it's ultimately the quality of the asset that will determine the deal price and the financial benefits that it provides the buyer(s). Hopefully we're at the stage where we've got competing offers.

And for the record, I'd far prefer a takeover than licensing deals. From my personal perspective, it would be good to see some finality. Having owned shares as far back as 2018 and being spooked out, selling out at 1p, I've ended up buying back in at an average of 11p.

After years of optimism regarding IMM, I've finally sold out at a 97% loss in my investment. Incredibly disappointing to see what's happening for long term holders but especially more so for the sufferers.

How could a company get it so wrong???? Oh, I've just remembered, Tim McC is in charge....

Good luck to all LTH's here and Lupus sufferers.

Hi Dh2133, Can you ask if IMM are getting any positive feedback already from the follow on trial? Has there been any encouraging feedback from the regulatory bodies (FDA, etc) so far? I suspect you won't get answers to some of the questions but the body language will be interesting. Many thanks!

Entirely possible this news has been released to put some pressure on any potential partners to put up or shut up. Wouldn’t surprise me if we see a few more encouraging result RNS’s over the coming weeks.

Yes, Elegance. I hope some interesting statistics come up of the data analysis. What happens, for example, if Mauritian trial participants skewed the trial results strongly on the placebo side? It would certainly back up the bull argument that the test failed, not the drug. I don�t expect the FDA to sign Lupozor off without there being some conditions attached. But it won�t be dismissed out of hand like some of the bears want it to be.

I just can't see IMM accepting an offer below £1.50. There are a lot of share options floating around at that level and Simbec-Orion will be wanting to make a profit out of their shareholding. I appreciate that IMM is only worth what a suitor is prepared to pay but with over 10 companies sniffing around I hope Bryan Garnier will be able to initiate a bidding war...

Why do you suggest that IPad?

Apologies, that should have been degsy, not degustation!!!!

Degustation, there�s certainly a lot more to come out I hope about the placebo effect once more analysis is done. Don�t entirely know how true it isn�t but someone mentioned that if the placebo effect had been lower we�d have met statistical significance. But placebo was far, far higher than anyone was expecting. I�m certainly hoping we see a marked placebo effect from Mauritius. And I also hope the FDA keep an open mind about the results if the high placebo result can be explained sufficiently.

What I�m unclear about is if SOC is also included with Lupozor on the follow on trial. Whilst riskier if it is just Lupozor and it proves not to work then it�s game over for IMM unless they�ve concluded a takeover or partnership before the OLE results are released. Are results analysed through the trial or only at the end?

I�m hoping this kind of question will get answered once more data analysis happens. Tim thought a high placebo effect was the greatest danger so I�d expect that a placebo effect analysis by region would be a necessity for negotiations with regulators and potential partners.