Member Info for Hulver

and also headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland - Complete Omics, we haven't heard anything from Hemogenyx yet regarding the collaboration that was informed by CO.

https://app.scientist.com/providers/complete-omics-inc

Also, headquartered in Maryland - Orgenesis

https://www.biobanking.com/orgenesis-and-hemogenyx-collaborate-to-manufacture-hu-phec-regenerative-technology/

Thanks JHFH, Pingu

I am broadly of the same mind that is a shame that the Mint financing was not permitted to work as intended. However given our small size it is imperative that others on the Board and Company Secretary pull their weight.

From my own perspective, this has been a great investment to learn from in all manner of ways. In terms of the placing I see that I need to have, and will try to get, a closer connection to the Company going forward.

I invested because I was drawn to the science and finding a cure/better way of life for AML sufferers. When that is done I hope the Company will be able to advance to solutions for other diseases. Hoping to be here for the long term.

There are other Directors on the Board.

Peter Redmond as a NED and especially with his reported financing expertise background should, on behalf of shareholders, have been asking questions about the financing proposal from the start. Did he propose it? If not did he question it? Why did the Board determine that the fund raise should not be open to all investors?

Andrew Wright as Company Secretary has responsibility for ensuring that proper corporate governance policy and procedures are in place and followed. We can see record of directors' attendances at meetings but are each of the directors being held to account for their responsibilities? I would have thought that as Company Secretary he should be approving all press releases - why has he allowed the poor standard of press releases with their lack of clarity that we have seen at times? As a Chartered Accountant was he consulted on the proposed financing arrangement?

Do these others have the capabilities and sufficient time to exercise their responsibilities properly? To me there are serious questions to be asked, especially of these two, at the forthcoming AGM.

As I see it Vlad brings the science, Sir Marc the connections - are the others that are charged with governance doing what they should be doing or would we better served and protected if they were replaced with new blood that was focussed on corporate governance?

Whilst honing the skills of sitting still and waiting patiently I came across this little tale, seemingly with analogies to our recent experiences as Hemo investors:

From the Broken-Link Handicap by Rudyard Kipling

“Did you ever know Shackles…….

He trained himself, ran himself, and rode himself; and if his jockey insulted him by giving him hints, he shut up at once and bucked the boy off. He objected to dictation. Two or three of his owners did not understand this, and lost money in consequence. At last he was bought by a man who discovered that, if a race was to be won, Shackles only, would win it in his own way, so long as his jockey sat still.

….the hardest thing a jock can learn – to sit still, to sit still and to keep on sitting still. ………

There was no horse like Shackles , so long as he was allowed to do his work in his own way.”

Alas in the tale Shackles was finally defeated, but only through the underhand ways of the owner of Regula Baddun!

Unshackled from Mint, will Hemo be able to return to winning ways ?

and a reminder of something specific to look forward to, from the Chairman's statement issued end of April:

"The Company's patent applications designed to protect its intellectual property progressed during the year and should begin to bear fruit in the near future. An additional composition of matter patent application (covering novel sequences of the antibodies discovered and validated by the Company in collaboration with GlobalCo) is expected to be filed following completion of the GlobalCo collaboration agreement."

Exactly, I'm invested because I believe Hemo's technology/product will work and revolutionise BMT and treatment for blood cancers - that will be big news. With the financing for the next phase in place, it's full steam ahead to deliver the trial results that prove it.

I assume that Hemo board (also being the principal shareholders) probably didn't envisage such a fall in the share price and being subject to conversions at anywhere like this level of SP. In my view the value of the company's technology is really unchanged from November, and if anything has probably increased.

I consider that Mint will have had a planned rate of conversion (whether placed or into the market) to reduce their risk exposure (possibly to zero) prior to the expected next drawdown. If this method of funding does continue I hope that Hemo is better able to time its drawdowns (and subsequent conversions) to coincide with the issue of positive trial results such that future dilutions are lower, and only to utilise this financing option at such times.

Still Hemo for me, I can't see anything better, even over just 3 mths. Drawdowns may happen at three monthly intervals, the first 3 months after draw down took us to start of May. I expect Hemo will be looking to release some news enabling Mint conversion of remainder of loans by as early as another three months time, and once cleared, I expect the SP to start to reflect an increased company asset value. It may take longer that the next three months to convert all existing but I expect the plan is to get these notes converted and absorbed into the market prior to the net draw down being needed. The product timeline suggests that being around start of Q4 2021 onwards. Still holding and adding.

With lowered expectations, maybe it'll be a better week than we expect.

Well, nearly there, I think we should be expecting the company's Annual Report to be issued next week which should provide us with a current comprehensive update on all projects and collaborations direct from the company's board as a whole. For the past three years it has been issued 30th or 29th April.

Extract from "To a Mouse" - Robert Burns (1785)

But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!

is the investment message that I think the 'Wee, sleeket, cowran, tim’rous beasties' on this board are trying to portray. Very fair advice from a cautionary aspect.

But the poem ends by contrasting the view of the mouse living only in the present, with the human's position of also having knowledge of past events and a cautious outlook of what the future might hold.

It is in the outlook of what the future of Hemo might hold that the differences of opinion of posters this week seem to lie.

In my view this company is doing great things, the outlook remains excellent (I don't think last week's RNS changed that), the CDX technology has been retained for the company's future benefit and I am pleased to be invested and on the journey. I await further updates.

So it seems, if we take what has been reported, that on 14 April a few minutes prior to market close Mint sold forward 23.4m of the shares on to one or more 'placees' who took those shares at 5.1p per share.

Mint then gave notice of conversion of £950k worth of the loan, which gives rise to 24,547,803 shares to be issued by the company at 3.87p per share being 10% discount to the closing bid price of 4.30p per share on 14th April.

On the previous conversions/placements we saw that exactly 1% commission was taken (in shares) on the first conversion and exactly 2% commission was taken (in shares) on the second conversion (see posts around 26 Mar).

In this case the numbers are not transparent like then, but 24,547,803 shares were issued and 23,400,000 sold on, leaving 1,147,803 shares to cover commission (2% commission would be around 490,956 shares), and I guess that it's possible that some of these residual shares may have been retained by Mint or sold on separately from this amount either in the market or to either of the first two placees, since their 3% limit before disclosure will have increased.

Ssccss, no, I am just constantly intrigued at the lengths that seem to be being taken to maintain a veil of secrecy around all of this, and today's RNS just reinforced it (nothing given away).

The fact that there seem to be multiple collaborations in place with different partners might be impacting any specific deal being reached. I could see that this situation might cause complications in negotiations - but potentially maintaining a situation of having two or more of such partners vying for position with Hemo in a longer term acquisition objective would be of significant benefit to Hemo shareholders (including Vlad if there's a future exit strategy on the horizon yet).

......possibly; solid and consistent in holding a positive outlook based on reading and research, yes definitely.

Vlad may actually have saved us from giving up CDX from the product portfolio at less than fair value price. Potentially further value has been added to the company through this. If what Globalco were going to pay was not going to be sufficient to fund the other projects, or their clinical development timescales did not fit in then a license at this stage would not have been in Hemo's best interests. A proof of concept stage product is valued at many multiples of the current stage. With the humanised mice - the time period to proof of concept, we are told, should be significantly reduced. Some posters seem to have jumped to the conclusion that it will now take years.

The share price today reflects angry investor sentiment and is potentially trading at a significant discount to asset value. It is annoying that I could have got in at a lower price, but I'd much rather be in than out.

When the unexpected event that is outside of your control happens, only you decide and choose your response to it. No-one else can make you choose a particular response.

"Further announcements will be made in due course." The RNS didn't have to end with that sentence - I fear that some may have chosen their response too hasty.

The one really interesting thing that I took from today's RNS and the current situation is that it means that for the time being Globalco remain unnamed! Now "that's funny".

Picking up on JHFH’s comment earlier of the possibility of a JV or partnership, I do consider that a very reasonable possibility.

It seems that a position has been reached where the collaboration has resulted in a bi-specific antibody that both parties consider to be of clinical grade quality.

I am of the opinion that Globalco (after 3 years input) want to license it outright but would like (have expected) it now at a price towards the pre-clinical asset end of the drug value spectrum, whereas Vlad, understanding the product’s current status and future expectation, wants to receive a price towards the clinical asset end of the drug value spectrum.

So the ongoing negotiations are aimed at finding a way forward that each party considers equitable and workable. I considered the RNS simply as being early notification to shareholders before Easter and well in advance of the ‘previously reported deadline’ expectation that licensing discussions were and would be ongoing. In my view it was issued then to try avoid any shareholder panic or criticism, given that Hemo already knew that discussion were going to take further time, to reach a potentially more complex solution.

The various things we have seen going on in the background suggest that this is not a simple arrangement and any agreement may require certain conditions precedent being fulfilled, which will take time to put in place.

Intertwined are other collaborations with this Globalco and other globalcos, so I don’t consider that a take-over is likely (at this stage), but if Globalco does have longer term designs on Hemo would it not make sense for them to continue that relationship closely in a JV or partnership to clinical trials on CDX? And from a Hemo shareholder’s perspective I don’t think it would be that bad either, yes there is ongoing product risk through development but for a significantly greater long-term reward. All the time the value seems to be building. I'm holding my shares too.

And just to add, in recent years Hemogenyx's final results have been issued around 30th April (2019 it was 29th), so there seems to be a towards the end of April convergence.

Sir Marc Feldmann's Chairman's Statement, dated 30th April 2020, ended - "My fellow Directors and I .............believe that the next 12 months will mark a key inflection point in its growth and maturity."

.........all in due time, perhaps ?

I am of the view that the new company will be used simply to segregate the CBR platform development products from the other ongoing product developments for business purposes - such as segregating the IP rights (if/when applied for), specific development funding for it with a globalco partner (possibly the same as for CDX but possibly different) and possibly recruitment/employment of field expertise relevant to the CBR development.

Having this type of SPV structure does then lend itself to the disposals of product(s) at the relevant stages and possibly to the partnering globalco in each instance. Whilst we might be looking at a sale of CDX in some format at this point (the benefit of which would be to allow focus of what is still a small team to be directed fully to CBR and CAR-T if they are the next in the pipeline) from the vision that has been portrayed so far I doubt that a sale of the business or a large part of it is being considered yet - it would be more beneficial to shareholders to reach a point where there are several potential partners engaged in a bid for it, even if there is one with a favoured culture.

So I think our knowledge of the new company was supposed to only come out with a CBR update which might include news of a patent application or new collaboration. But given the company is established - suggests that update may not be too far away either.

Given the successful collaboration with Globalco for CDX, perhaps both sides are evaluating a new collaboration for the development of CBR as part of the settlement negotiations for CDX.

The game is certainly afoot.

Whilst this price trajectory is very frustrating, everyone invested should try to relax, after all there's only two prices that matter, the price we buy at and the price when we will sell (no-one looking to sell yet I hope, given the pipeline and potential fountain of cures).

We have our shares already, no-one can make us sell them - it will be our choice when we do so.

Today the price seems to have been settled (once again) in the trajectory and trading pattern that seems to precede a loan conversion, though haven't worked out why (or if) that should constrain or enable the price pathway to be so constrained. So I am wondering if the lack of positive price movement today portends another large investor joining us later this week.

I also noticed for a short period today that the offer quote (7.42) was below the bid quote (7.45) (on IG), not much but I noticed that happen last week too – is that indicative of anything?

So I continue to hold and be patient, happy that I already have my investment position - there appears to be lots happening in the background now.

Per their website there is also a potential connection to U Penn - could that be the new investor (as they are working on HEMO CAR-T)?

The establishing of separate SPVs for different products is quite usual in a venture capital world as when the exit time comes it is easier to sell the subsidiary with patents and IP., than transfer the assets. It is probably also useful for specific funding and with regard to separating risk.

That said this would appear to show that CBR is advancing and that this forward planning is an important.

With the tweet about 'shape and form' - I was actually wondering whether disposal of a subsidiary may be what would be involved with CDX but I am not sure which subsidiary the CDX product/IP is held by. I consider that 'shape and form' might imply some sort of ongoing support and collaboration between the two parties (perhaps on other products). It's great having a multiple product portfolio.