Member Info for HotblackDesiato

Hi SOG - yes, so my point #4 covers your thoughts, "...the BoD want to fully review the data before issuing a 'next steps' RNS."

However there could still be a benefit in issuing a "737 has formally been returned" RNS - it would confirm to shareholders that SO/GSK aren't playing silly buggers and also pave the way ahead if they also noted, "we are now evaluating the data with CPF and will be sharing our findings with interested parties (plural!) in the coming weeks."

SCHeckler - even if it wasn't aimed at me, I think your comment "...listen very carefully...", patronising to say the least. Just for info, I too have had to regularly review data packages (2million+ records each time) and produce analysis based on a wide variety of criteria. Without giving the game away as to who I worked for, my reports had a very wide-ranging impact. As to the scale of the task the BoD have, didn't JR mention at the last meeting that it could take anywhere from a day to a month? If so, the review could actually be already completed by now.

All very interesting, SOG.

So with your Columbo hat on, if (big if) 737 has been returned either with a 100% complete data package or not, why has there not been an RNS?

My own thoughts:

1. It hasn't been handed back yet.
2. It's been handed back but lacks genetic info and we're chasing SO for the missing data.

Announcing either of the above would knock the sp.

3. It has been handed back and the data is 100% complete.
4. As per 3 but the BoD want to fully review the data before issuing a 'next steps' RNS.
5. As per 4 and the BoD are also currently speaking with the CPF re amendments to the partnership agreement and if we get any say in future deal negotiations.

So the BoD may be waiting to issue as complete an RNS as possible rather than dripfeed info to the market. It's debatable as to what would boost the sp more - a single humdinger of an RNS or an individual step by step approach.

You'd think they need to update the market one way or another within the next fortnight, no?

Morning SOG - As scientists the BoD should have a natural curiosity regarding other developments within their field so any new findings re CHK1 shouldn't go unnoticed....I hope!

Yeah, all a bit strange that the sustained buying just keeps bouncing off 109p.

Can't be too much longer until the sp heads back north towards 200p+.

Warty - private companies aren't covered by the FOI act unless they carry out public functions e.g. a utilities company.

Hi Aber - the mysterious '2 trades' might simply be down to someone using an algorithm that has become stuck in a bit of a loop. I think I'm right in saying that some traders (maybe the kind who think they're big rollers when they make £50) will use an algorithm to automatically buy/sell small amounts based on certain historic parameters. They'll have an account where they can trade for free so there isn't any issue with a dealing fee being greater than the value of the shares.

As others have pointed out, rather than sending messages via trades, MMs will have less traceable methods of communicating.

Hi Warty - I've previously e-mailed SAR and got a reply back a few days later from Tim. Not sure how they choose which e-mails to respond to but obviously they'll feel more inclined to reply to concise and politely worded queries rather than some of the screeching vitriol we've seen posted by others here.

When will people understand the CTA was not rejected? It is on hold due to the review authority requiring an audit/inspection of the records held by the lab that carried out the work for us.

If people want an update, rather than complain on a forum, they could e-mail the company.

CJH - there is no connection. See the entry that Potnak alludes to here (2nd last paragraph) https://m.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/SARTORIUS-STEDIM-BIOTECH-27471609/news/Sartorius-Stedim-Biotech-S-A-Sartorius-Aktiengesellschaft-2022-Earnings-Call-Jan-26-2023-42825326/

Yep, well spotted Potnak.

An interesting find but we need clarity on the figure's source e.g. did the BoD or Consilium provide the figure or has it been a typo by a MarketScreener employee?

I'm not on twitter but would appreciate it if anyone here is able to ping Parker regarding this or Alex Harrison as Head of Investor Relations.

Hi Aber - I'm as keen as you are to get some progress here but I don't expect the BoD to RNS every time they speak to the CPF for an update!

Regards.

Morning Aber - I suspect there's very little the BoD can do as 737 was licensed from CPF rather than from us.

Section 15 of the contract deals with termination and what happens next https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1290149/000119312516765907/d255357dex101.htm

Hi Fanti, just to add to SOG's reply -

From the patent link you posted, that Dec 2022 entry relates to the patent application being submitted to cover Australia. You can find out why companies lodge a worldwide (WO) application followed by further country-specific applications in this link - https://www.upcounsel.com/wo-patents

Although 737 is coming back to CPF, Sierra don't appear to have cancelled any of their 737-related patent applications so far. Therefore the related IP value they've added via the patents should be reflected in the price CPF/SAR can achieve in any on-license or sale of 737.

SCH - now if you'd done your homework you'd know SOG originally posted his figures back on 12th Jan. Similarly, if you'd read the ProNai contract you'd know the difference between working days and calendar days.

Must try harder.

Hi SCH - with regard to term & termination, see section 14.2.6 "by ProNAi without cause by ninety (90) days written notice to CPF."

Other parts of section 14 make specific reference to (and therefore differentiates) 'business days' so I think the above confirms it's 90 calendar days.

Morning SOG,

The question is how far can GSK kick the return of 737 into the long grass? As you'll know the terms of the contract state -
15.1 Upon the termination (but not expiration) of this Agreement for any reason:
15.1.4 ProNAi shall promptly transfer to CPF (or any person nominated by CPF) any and all documents and information in ProNAi’s control or possession relating to the Licensed Patents and CPF may assume responsibility for the prosecution and maintenance of the same.

The related RNS was 12th Oct so if we assume GSK informed us a day or two before the RNS was issued and add 90 days, we reach mid-Jan. Lawyers are clever buggers so 'promptly' has a suitably vague definition. Still, even if we don't get news 'til mid-Feb, at least that allows time for more prospective buyers to join the queue.

And to think we'd been using the, ahem, 'streamlined' process!

https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2021/7/mhra-announces-streamlined-clinical-trial-review-p

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/clinical-trials-investigational-medicinal-products-ctimps/combined-ways-working-pilot/

Evening Potnak - per the study report, the objective response rate in anogenital cancer was 25%, so methinks you could do with a new calculator ;-)

And as far as I can tell, yes, 737 combo trials with anything other than LDG would require starting more or less from scratch with P1/2 trials etc. however it's worth considering this chart from the study https://aacrjournals.org/view-large/figure/14950192/331fig3.jpeg and also the definition of 'stable disease' here https://www.verywellhealth.com/definition-of-stable-disease-2249195

"Cancer doctors use the term stable disease to describe a tumor that is neither growing nor shrinking. Specifically, it means that there was neither an increase in size of more than 20% nor a decrease in size of more than 30% since the initial baseline measurement.? Stable disease also means that no new tumors have developed and that cancer has not metastasized (spread) to other parts of the body.

Stable disease falls in the spectrum of treatment responses. And though people may be discouraged to hear that a tumor has not shrunk considerably, stable disease can sometimes be a good sign. For example, if a tumor was expected to grow and did not, stable disease may indicate that a therapy is, indeed, working.

While stable disease can have significant meaning, there are some limitations when it comes to defining it. Newer treatments (such as targeted therapies and immunotherapy) are also altering the ways doctors consider the idea of stable disease."

As others have previously noted, 737+LDG appears effective so continued P2 trials (or even P3) with patients caught at an early enough stage of disease may see even better results.

Sorry, Potnak, one other thing - not sure where you got the 4.5% figure from as 7 out of 65 is 10.8%

Regards.