Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
That web page has been there since around September time.
However, in the Boston presentation he clearly stated that CBR is being spun out into a new subsidiary Bait Biotechnology, so maybe Prevail are still working on that and the significant funding required for CBR; and this was placing was necessary to maintain progress on HEMO-CAR-T in the meantime.
And what about CBR and Bait Biotechnology spin out - this RNS makes no mention of that or Prevail, yet several constructs were ready for lab testing in September. The last fund raise provided some funding for modest work on that - but that's all. Is something else going on too?
Some thoughts:
We can all surmise (and do) but the only narrative that should matter is that issued by the company.
Just a reminder - the latest narrative (not that long ago) was that the company looks forward to accelerating HEMO CAR-T clinical trial. The other latest narratives confirmed progress as expected to various points is now complete. I think the CBR updates were released solely to tidy things up as they contained mostly information that had already got into public domain without RNS (I agree that's very poor).
With strangely no mention of Prevail by Hemo nor any mention of HEMO's CH lift from Prevail since the CH lift it seems possible that the Company and Prevail have parted ways - but then wouldn't that need to be RNS'd before now? There would certainly be a cost to it, and 11m unwanted shares hanging around from the placing too. If that is the case perhaps Prevail could not manage to drum up the required level of financing, especially now that several CBR constructs are also ready for further testing too. But that would then beg questions about the quality of foresight and due diligence undertaken by the Hemo board and the warranties given by Prevail for the CRO engagement. If there is another party, presumably they do not want Prevail involved, but if that's the case then presumably the funding deal is better than what Prevail could offer, which one would think would be better than a Peterhouse fund raise. We will see in due time.
In my view, it's naive and too simple to think that any big pharma will have a say in Vlad's decision, that would seem to go against what we know of his character so far - the manner of the company's development and next growth stage remains his choice, and I suggest he will do what is morally right for medicinal progress and getting these products (and teh broader pipeline) into clinical trials.
What I really hope is that we do not find that the non-executive directors and advisors (especially those with financing experience) have been asleep at the wheel and let the scientists down here, by not having funding ready, or an assessment of risks or a plan b, c etc. If they have let the scientists down then I hope this year that others will join in a concerted effort to seek a change of certain non-execs at the next AGM.
There are AML sufferers on a death sentence that need this chance, as by the time the next clinical trial chance comes along they won't be here.
Finally - there's been worse days. Sunshine follows rain.
I wonder will Vlad be in London for this, this week.
https://cartcr-europe.com/whats-on/expert-speakers/
(For anyone else keeping an eye on CARM, out of UPenn, they are presenting.)
Somewhat out of main focus: but can anyone shed any further light on the 'miracle negotiator' that was soon to join Hemo in late 2021, alongside Dr Alan Walts, who would appear to still be engaged on the basis of his inclusion on Vlad's presentation slides at the September, Boston pitch for Bait Biotechnology.
https://total-market-solutions.com/2021/10/hemogenyx-pharmaceuticals_oct_2021/
Haywain,
...and I'm predicting that in years to come similar will be written about (at least) one of HEMO's current team of younger scientists.
A fountain of cures and a hotbed of talent. It's quite obvious where this company is headed.
Interestingly, this investment professional at Heligan seems to like Hemo:
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/simon-heath-39b461117?trk=public_profile_browsemap-profile
Can anyone suggest answers to the following:
- why has there never been any TR1s here - either on acquiring or exiting? I thought holdings in excess of 3% had to be disclosed, and any subsequent movement up or down that goes through the next whole percentage point.
- are certain shareholders exempt from the requirement to disclose in a TR1?
- can several shareholders/entities work in collusion to collectively hold >3% without making disclosure (eg 10 related entities owning 2% each)? It seems that was what Ron Bauer and co were accused of in the US, and at least two of their number (Bauer and Auringer) were investors here in the early days, when initial admission was 3p; and in one of the video calls (probably about 18 months ago or more) Vlad indicated that they no longer knew how their shares were held or whether any had been sold at the time of the video call, since they had been moved out of their names into a custodian's account - perhaps they were still there. From reports their strategy was to accumulate large shareholdings in low volume stocks.
Interesting...
Yesterday broker would not accept a limit trade to be placed, something like 'price too far away from current price'
Today - happy to accept limit trades for a bigger difference. Same number of shares. Why is that?
Needless to say, I have held off.
Last time Vlad considered he had won was when he extracted himself from Globalco deal, buying out the IP element that Globalco had introduced.
so does seem to suggest that he may have withdrawn from Prevail.
'accelerating clinical' sort of implies something new too. But what would be 'excruciatingly difficult' for him - giving up control of HEMO CAR-T perhaps?
As an aside I note that Jessica Jang, ex Collectis - 3 years, has left Hemogenyx in Feb 2024 after just 11 months - which seems a bit of a blow.
Does the following help to make any sense of what happened Friday (and earlier since start of 2024 and previous spikes):
The conversions by Mint under the convertible loan note were:
25 February 2021: 13,131,313 new ordinary shares at a conversion price of £0.0495
26 March 2021: 14,285,714 new ordinary shares at a conversion price of £0.063
16 April 2021: 24,547,803 new ordinary shares at a conversion price of £0.0387
26 April 2021: 29,850,746 new ordinary shares at a conversion price of £0.03015
5 May 2021: 22,222,222 new ordinary shares at a conversion price of £0.0225
Is it just coincidence that the bid price opened at 6.30 p (the highest issue price to Mint)?
Is it just coincidence that 2.25p and the 3.87p approx were sticking points on the way back up? We currently rest around 3.87p.
Since Vlad crashed the SP with the 1.5p take out have Mint remained sitting on these shareholdings from their CLN conversions in teh background until now when they can realise them at a profit?
Has Friday seen Mint clear the bulk of their shareholding - highest price first?
Let's not forget that Hemo have Dr Koen van Besien as clinical director. CAR-T clinical trials is his business.
https://ashpublications.org/ashclinicalnews/news/6486/UH-Selects-Koen-van-Besien-as-Hematology-Chief-and
They also developed HEMO-CAR-T with UPenn, and its hospital/centre too is regularly conducting CAR-T trials.
Hence, I don't expect there to be any delay in finding trial candidates.
Clearly for AML sufferers CAR-T offers a real hope of a future.
The following link describes Prevails last investment as PIPE.
https://www.cbinsights.com/company/hemogenyx/financials
Then considering the RNS re: Prevail
https://hemogenyx.com/investors/investors/announcements/announcement/2023/hemogenyx-pharmaceuticals-announces-strategic-investment-from-prevail-partners-llc/
Does the sentence:
“The agreement governing the subscription (the “Subscription Agreement”) contains customary warranties from the Company and Prevail Partners.”
suggest that there is a restriction on Prevail selling there first issue of shares.
So in my view this is pointing to more of the same type of funding for CAR-T, CDX and CBR (there is plenty to be done - £10m may not be enough fo two years, but perhaps we may have shorter gaps between future PIPE funding rounds, with fair value revaluations at each point) .
Remember also that Dr Alan Walts has been involved for a couple of years now - in the past he's also been involved in funding rounds for other biotech companies, on occasion in the range of US$20m.
SP will still be based on supply and demand of unrestricted shares. The potential supply would become 'limited' though (until the PIPE shares are out of restriction). If people want in they will need to pay.
Needless to say, my shareholding is not for sale either.
I found the attached document in relation to PIPE funding.
https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/gbfor25_2006/pinedo_tanenbaum_pipefaq.pdf
{If link does not work google 'PIPE Funding Tenenbaum FAQ' to find it. As well as explaining PIPE Funding it also contains a final paragraph on 'death spiral' finance - if only HEMO would have had that warning two years ago}
“During the black-out period, the purchasers will have limited liquidity, as they will not be able to avail themselves of the resale registration statement to resell the securities purchased in the transaction.”
That is essentially what we want - a PIPE funding round, with a (two year) resale restriction by the new participants.
Now that would be funny.