Member Info for Hulver

And perhaps update on whether pediatric amendment has been accepted or not - didn't someone post that there was a 30 day window for FDA to respond if they had any issues with the amendment. The 30 days has now passed - let's hope the FDA have accepted it - and there's a chance for HG-CT-1 to make a real difference for someone soon.

Per the previous share issue at start of May the RNS included:

"Warrants

Concurrent with the purchase of the New Ordinary Shares, the Purchaser will receive warrants from the Company on a one-for-one basis. These warrants will be exercisable for a period of 36 months at an exercise price of 270 pence ("Exercise Price"), subject to adjustment in certain circumstances as set out in the warrant instrument including a reset of the Exercise Price if the Company completes a share issuance (or other transaction granting rights to subscribe for equity securities) during the Exercise Period at a price lower than the Exercise Price."

We have today had a subsequent issue at a share price below the Exercise Price of the warrants for the May tranche - so will that mean the Exercise Price of the first tranche of warrants is going to be reduced - implies more profit to the Purchaser (Intermediary) if the warrants are ever in the money. Is the Purchaser of today's shares from VS the same Purchaser of the May batch - are they going to benefit further on the first tranche because of this. Is today's Purchase facilitated because the Purchaser was able to clear the first batch by selling on to secondary purchasers - I suspect that was already arranged in advance? The Purchaser must sell on at the same price 180.5p so one would think that these are ultimately going to sticky hands - but still at a huge discount - and all to less than 3% shareholders, since no significant holding disclosures so far. Through the warrants the Purchaser seems to be being given potential future benefit for little/no risk as they only retain the warrants, and are entitled to the same amount as they sell on. Seems to be a great deal for this 'Purchaser' just for finding finance. Meanwhile for several years Hemo has a board member and a board adviser that have significant experience in that area - is this their solution or is this due to the lack of fund raising by them?

Is this essentially a "Mint" but in a slightly different guise? As usual there's a huge lack of transparency from the board. Why raise again so quickly after May tranche - or was it just because it was made available to them? Purchaser and the secondary purchasers clearly getting an exceptionally good deal, given we consolidated to raise funds at £4 per share per PR. How as the company got itself in this financial position?

At least the trial progresses and seems to be showing some signs of success - especially given that the PI pretty much recommended that AML patients who still had MRD after undergoing the current approved treatments, should seek enrolling on a clinical trial such as at MDA.

Https://healthtree.org/aml/community/events/may2025-acute-myeloid-leukemia-flt3

So you didn't watch this webinar Stu?

Given by Nicholas Short, the Principal Investigator for HEMO's HG-CT-1 trial at MD Anderson. It could hardly come from a more qualified person.

Clearly explains why elimination of FLT3 is the next step and potentially the cure (without needing HSCT); and how CAR-T is the possible solution to eliminate FLT3.

Or just maybe you did?

Sharing link to a webinar given by Nicholas Short (the Principal Investigator for HEMO CAR-T clinical trial at MDAnderson) on 15/05/2025 and specifically Understanding FLT3 in AML: What it Means and How it is Treated. Well at least how it is treated currently!!

https://healthtree.org/aml/community/events/may2025-acute-myeloid-leukemia-flt3

You just need to register to listen to the full one hour recording. Provides a clear analysis of current state of play, treatments and essentially what HEMO CAR-T is aiming to assist with, improve upon or perhaps disrupt entirely.

For those that cannot spare an hour and aren't that interested in the science from around 44.26 to 45.42 there is this question from the host, and subsequent interesting answer from NS (apologies if any errors in the transcript):

"Q: Has research into FLT3 mutated AML advanced in recent years, are there any exciting clinical trials for next generation FLT3 inhibitors (FLT3i) in development that our patients should know about or ask their doctors?

A: Things are moving very quickly, it was 2017 when we had the first FLT3i which I guess is now 8 years ago, but we had midostaurin approved, then we had quizartinib approved just in the last couple of years and then gilterinib approved several years ago. So we are making progress and it continues, there are other FLT3i that are being developed; they're in relief phase(?) studies but there are some that have already shown activity so I think that those are good options, so for example a patient who has already had gilterinib and/or quizartinib there's really not any other approved options for the FLT3 mutations after that, so the best option for those patients would be to do a clinical trial and there are a number we have at our own institution and elsewhere of target inhibitors against FLT3. We have a FLT3 CAR-T cells, there's a lot of interest in cellular therapies like CAR-T cells and we have one targeting FLT3 for example at MD Anderson so there is a lot of progress. It's hard to say what the next big approval will be or big next drug but there are several in clinical trials."

And it's been brought a month earlier than usual - wonder why?

We can only hope it's an activist investor. Though it seems it's just an(other) underhand way of washing more shares away at a discounted price. Value stripping.

Re-appointment of Director

3. To re-appoint as Director Peter Redmond, who retires by rotation under Article 74.2 of the Articles of

Association of the Company and, being eligible, offers himself for re-election.

Voting in favour is recommended by the Board! Duty of governance?

It's the size of the short position that matters not the % of investors.

So it could be 2 accounts out of 50 or 1 out of 33 perhaps; the position could be significant or immaterial (spoofing a short)

Previously shorts in the know - weren't they? Leaked from the Company - who's the connection at the company?

IG is vague, is it accurate - doesn't have a great record in accurately disclosing trades (as tested)?

Probably participants on here.

Noone can be trusted.

Per P20 of the Annual Report , Peter Redmond holds 13,989 shares (which has now been corrected in the website): it states

"Peter Redmond holds the majority of these shares through Catalyst Corporate Consultants Ltd of which he is the sole shareholder."

Companies House is reporting that Catalyst Corporate Consultants Ltd was dissolved on 22 April 2025 (prior to the date of signing of the financial statements) following its compulsory strike off on 11 April 2025. It's poor form to allow your company to be struck off; and did he consider the shares held by his company to have no value? - or does he have another company of the same name in another jurisdiction. Who knows - seems pretty sad really?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07916221/filing-history

However, there's another very subtle observation on the financial statements posted on HEMO's website - the front cover is stamped with the Hemo logo including the words "a life saving company" - now that's very very interesting (almost amounting to confirmation of P1 progress perhaps).

Given that its an audited document, I was not necessarily 'expecting' there to be much.

However I was 'hoping' for more specific updates on the CBR BSL3 testing, the aforementioned pediatric studies and funding, CDX IND enabling studies, and some addition/replacement to the board. The narrative updates this year seems considerably less informative than that in previous years.

I was not expecting such a poor attendance at board meetings by the Chairman (bear in mind the statement that follows the attendance table in the report); the extremely low cash figure at 31 December (given the clear statement by PR about not being in the situation of requiring to raising funds at below 1p); and what to me appear to be several 'kitchen sinking' statements that seem to have been resurrected/reworded from previous years' reports. Little if any new information with this, and meanwhile the infusion of P2 seems delayed.

An unanswered interesting questions remains though:

What exactly was in the FDA clinical trial update and the plans for the next year? It seems strange to have RNS'd that at the time. Let's hope P2 can wait long enough.

No, that is the one good thing I was alluding to from the report being issued on time.

That is not to be underestimated.

That is about the only positive I can see - the report is issued on time.

Shocking.

No mention of the previously RNS'd pediatric study or the associated investment.

Chairman's board attendance!

And what's the impact of this disclosure that the auditors presumably considered significant:

"In February 2025, the Company terminated its Exclusive License Agreement with Cornell University."

Only good thing is that it clears the way for other vague updates that would otherwise have required a detailed inclusion. I cannot see this being received well at all. Roll on the AGM - if we get that far.

Annual report due by next Wednesday 30th, so I doubt anything new before then, if it is to be issued on time. However if funding for next 12 months is not sorted to satisfaction of auditors by 30th and the report is issued - we face delayed issue of the report and suspension of trading (until resolved) - or a qualified audit opinion.

At this stage, I doubt that either of those scenario would worry Vlad in the slightest. They have just filed an annual clinical trial report which apparently detailed their aims for further clinical tests in the next 12 months. I wonder did it include anything about the pediatric clinical trial the funding for which from Prevail did not materialise in March (so was the work undertaken or not) as previously RNS'd. A period of temporary suspension now seems a definite possibility in my view.

Resolved (i think) - patient treatment commenced with the depletion phase - 5 days (of chemo?) prior to infusion of HG-CT-1; so yes at Easter weekend it would have been 9 weeks since the first patient started out on this course of treatment.

We may be in the 9th week since treatment, but nine weeks have not yet passed if the previous RNS's were correct.

Wed 19/2 (the date of the issue of loan notes) "preparing to treat".

Then Mon 24/2 treatment announced (they cannot announce at weekend).

Assuming treatment happened Thu 20/2 or Fri 21/2 then 9 weeks is this coming Thu 24/4 or Fri 25/4. There seems to be some inconsistency in the facts - wouldn't you expect anyone in Vlad's position to know exactly how many weeks had passed since P1 received treatment? Excellent news, but strange inconsistency.

Thank you for confirming. It does look like quiet progress in the background.

It will be interesting whether the board have a solution to potential going concern predicament, to the satisfaction of the auditors, within just 9 business days time and the issue of the annual report or it may only be a very short road ahead now (but one thing in their favour is that I cannot see any staff having left yet). If not and the financials are issued late - does trading in the Company's shares get suspended until the accounts are released by 30 April?

Also, is there anyone with knowledge of how the patent application process works able to comment on the below as

it seems there may have been refinements made to the seminal CBR patent in 2024/2025.

The original patent is here:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2023168292&_cid=P10-M9ILQP-45534-1

The following seems to be a later revision, as it seems to show various of the original claims as 'cancelled', but that could be because the remaining clauses cover them.

https://www.patentguru.com/US20250092112A1

Is it normal procedure to reduce and refine patents - I have no experience of such things. There has been nothing reported to shareholders, however the websites also seem to show the patent application filed in Japan, Korea, China, Europe, Canada and later in India and Israel. The patent seems to be progressing as it has now been published in several of these countries at various dates in Q1 2025. The RNS advising the filing if the original seminal patent was in March 2022, does anyone have any insight into how much longer the process could take in the US (I expected two - three years, and we are now past that)?

There is no response from the board to emails, that only happened once, when they wanted to secure a vote for the consolidation.

So with approx 14 days manufacturing and delivery, and a pre-injection depletion phase we should be looking at injection in the next few days, if things go to plan.

RNS 17 March:

"The manufacturing of HG-CT-1 for the second patient, carried out by the Company's team of scientists and quality control professionals, is scheduled to commence shortly."

This subsequent to selection and testing. The manufacturing takes two weeks end to end. Had it have been started 17 March would have been completed and injected around start of April.

So we are back to Vlad's current definition of shortly - presently we are on the way to it being two weeks; so I am thinking that second patient injection must be very close - these patients do not have time on their side to be waiting (they have not responded to the usual treatments, so are already a good way through their limited time remaining since their initial diagnosis); so I am sure everything possible is being done to get the HEMO CAR-T to them.

Vlad did say that, all being well, the pace of the trial would accelerate and MD had indicated that they had patients in need of the treatment.

If the funding is not sorted this month then is Hemo going to run into going concern issues with the possibility of the auditors having to issue an emphasis of matter re: going concern in their audit report?

Last year the auditor's reported that they had reviewed and were happy with the board's plans to secure sufficient funding to enable financials to be shown on a going concern basis (i.e. next 12 months to end April 2025) - I doubt those plans were what subsequently transpired in 2024.

By end April 2025 and the issue of the audited financials, if they want a clean audit report they will need to show that funding will be expected to be available to enable Hemo to meet its liabilities for period to end April 2026!

So we have to hope there will be another funding update before or with the year end financials.