Member Info for HotblackDesiato

RMM - how dare you bring a calm rationale to an internet forum!!

;-)

No problem, and to add to things - https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/snippets/pfizer-bows-out-tyk2-race

NDR - You might find this link of interest (I'm sure it's been posted here before, possibly by Thoth): https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/interviews/esker-joins-tyk2-race

If I read it correctly it looks like Pfizer & Galapagos were going for the active domain with Tyk2 in psoriasis rather than taking allosteric approach.

Galapagos patent application mentioned on page 3 here https://www.eurobench.com/Forum/Upload/2020/12320399.pdf - "GLPG3667 product candidate: We have a pending patent application under the PCT, as well as patent applications
pending in Taiwan and other foreign countries claiming GLPG3667 compositions of matter and methods of treatment using
GLPG3667. Patents, if any, that issue based on this pending patent application are estimated to expire in 2038, not
including any potential extensions for the marketed product that may be available via supplementary protection certificates
or patent term extensions."

Hope the above is useful.

Evening Elcap,

I think the difficulty for the shareholders reading this forum is that none of us can ever see the whole picture.

When you suggest that Tim has done nothing since the proposed consolidation, we can't be 100% certain of this. It has been suggested before that some of the SAR BoD do read the contributions here and if that's true, then SAR HQ must surely be aware of current sentiment regarding consolidation.

There are investors and then there are active investors. What we don't know is if a group of shareholders with a collectively significant number of shares have contacted the BoD directly to indicate their concerns over consolidation at this stage - do we really need institutional funding today as opposed to perhaps 12mths down the road?

By postponing an EGM until after announcement of the tox report/CTA/AGILE decision/milestone payments finally paid/any new patent applications etc. the BoD would surely bolster the sp thus ensuring a more representative MCAP when the time comes to get institutions involved.

It's easy to think every SAR shareholder reads this board but I wouldn't be surprised if the real figure turned out to be less than 20%. I just wonder how many of the silent majority would go along with a proposed consolidation based purely on the recommendation of the BoD.

Regards.

GeeJay - people are allowed to change their opinion. Sometimes it's based on new evidence, sometimes it's based on nothing more than a bit of indigestion.

Hi Zylo - I'm not saying PH were shorting BMN or were complicit in some way, I'm saying that's the rumour. If PH were up to some shenannigans then I imagine the truth will come out but until BMN management make a statement then shareholders are left guessing.

Hi Rioutd777,

Currently we're worth near enough £150m. Ignoring what the current unknowns - tox report, CTA, possible AGILE application and timeframe for milestone payments - may do to the sp, if we need to raise, say, £50m to get us through the next stage of trials then that would lead to quite a dilution at current prices.

Many here have written about how other shares have suffered in the short term after consolidation. If that were to happen here then a fund raise for £50m against a potentially eroded post-consolidation MCAP would clearly have a greater impact than if we were currently back up at an MCAP of £300m.

Whilst I remain on the fence re consolidation, I suspect the majority of those opposing it are mainly doing so with an eye on potential MCAP come the next round of funding.

As for whatever PH are up to, I previously posted that they were dropped rather abruptly by Bushveld Minerals. Word on the street being that they were shorting them. If that turns out to be the case then would you trust PH with your long term investment in SAR?

SCH - or wait for 25p and set your sights a bit higher!

https://singervehicledesign.com/

Morning all,

The consolidation mooted by the BoD would be in order to attract greater investment.

If consolidation went ahead and it leads to say, £20m investment from somewhere, what would we do with it assuming our current funding is sufficient to get us through the year? Do you think some of it could partly be used to solve the Flt3+Aurora solubility problem?

If we were to get milestone payments from Sierra, even at the end of this year, would those be large enough to mean institutional investment isn't needed to progress 1801/2?

Whilst large institutional investment would show a confidence in what SAR does, would milestone payments be better for the sp than additional funding?

Anyone got any thoughts?

Every big pharma will have teams looking at what drug discovery companies are doing. They'll know who's patenting what. If they don't then they aren't doing their job.

Though SAR don't get a mention, the figures here will make your eyes water.

https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/4-biotechs-could-potential-takeover-115211358.html?guce_referrer=ahr0chm6ly9kdwnrzhvja2dvlmnvbs8&guce_referrer_sig=aqaaaipf_lsfe_2gimbqjoe0hfaceji5d6lwauxovdwzvzlnsmodgtgh0h1xj6wys_hjifihh4xruyeny_kilqh6gjqzaj6k5e6ckckqnhoepztvlk3bf5cngtl5exowaz5jjkwmspyecxu_mae3f1npibhy36kac-drfls__jrjn3sa

Very interesting update, LW.

Does anyone think we're in a position where if we got 737 milestone payments, then a consolidation on the basis that it'd attract institutions would no longer be required as we'd effectively become self-funding (albeit up to a point)?

I think I'm right in saying our current funds will last us through this year but will probably need significant money to go much further. I know the broad plan is to on-license compounds at a suitable time but to maximise shareholder returns we need to take things as far as we can by ourselves.

Is it possible that an EGM to discuss consolidation could include a vote along the lines of, 'Shareholders wish to defer share consolidation for a period of up to 12 months however this timeframe will be revised should milestone payments become due from Sierra within the same 12 month period.'?

This would give us the option of saying we're not against consolidation but let's see what funds we have later in the year.

Any thoughts?

Morning all,

Using only your perception, decide which statements are true or false.

1. The drop in sp is deliberate.

2. PH are wholly responsible for the drop and Hybridan are innocent bystanders.

3. PH haven't felt the need to release a broker note as it would effectively just be an echo of the Edison report.

4. A PH broker note must surely put SAR in a good light and lead to more investors wanting shares, forcing an increase in sp.

5. PH ultimately wants any company they deal with to have a large MCAP as that benefits PH too.

Now for a bonus point -

6. The squiggy world of biology actually deals in rigidly unambiguous absolutes therefore delays to trials and rigourous analysis of results is a smokescreen for something else.

Any info that could impact the sp (good or bad) has to be announced immediately. It's possible excuses could be found to kick the tox report further down the road such as "we're liaising with experts to interpret and confirm exciting findings within the reported data", but that'd be a dangerous tactic.

Aurora shelved while SAR concentrates on 1801/1802.

I'm afraid the simple answer is, it depends.

What resources have been allocated to reviewing the data - one person or a small team?
Does the one person have decades of experience whilst the small team has a lower combined knowledge?

Although you've asked a straight forward question, there are perhaps too many caveats to give a clear answer. What I have read is that trials can be stopped if interim data reports suggest the drug in question is falling far short of even the most modest expectations.

It's perhaps fair to say if our data was far below a predetermined level, we'd know about it by now.

Search for 'drug trials halted due to toxicity' for all the info you might need to answer your query.

Regards.

Hi DP64,

Re your third point, 'there should be some deferred share option or warrants for LTH based on a prespecified date'. Are you suggesting, for example, that if you owned shares prior to the specified date but sold most of them at a later time, that you should benefit to a similar degree as someone who has kept their holding continuously?

Whilst I understand your position, it might be deemed unfair by some LTHs (just for clarity, I don't include myself in the LTH club).

Hotblack.

Sorry to learn of your sad loss.

Even though most of us here will never meet in real life, it's heartening to see so many strangers care about others during difficult times.

Evening Londonwolfie - I did have that in the back of my mind and checked their website prior to posting. The contact page says their global HQ is in California, hence the error.

https://www.sierraoncology.com/company/contact-us/

Whilst in the UK we might be more inclined to think globally, our much-needed milestone payments are tied to patients being dosed in the US.

So perhaps we need a more novel approach in encouraging Sierra to meet this clause. What do Americans like even more than dollars? Patriotism!

What we therefore need is a twitter account to start berating Sierra for their current unpatriotic approach - imagine a US company treating foreign cancer patients?! Why, son, that's unconstichooootional. If they can pay for trials in the UK then they can pay to help US citizens too! All together now, O say can you see, by the dawn's early light etc.

Just a thought.

Hi Belhus - if only Sierra could give some indication as to when they might expect to dose a patient in the US. That would at least give us a sort of timeframe for when we'll see a milestone payment.

As far as I'm aware the trials with 737 have only been in UK & Spain. I have a horrible feeling this outside-US approach may continue in order to side step payments.

Regards.