Member Info for Ivyspivey

Hi Violindog. Cash position at end April is £3.5m so should last until Q4/20 assuming all trucks are out back a year or so due to Covid 19.
They highlight a major issue as being lack of institutional holding apart from Vulpes and Calculus and given they got was it 18 or 19 Institutions to support a raise a couple of years ago the issue seems to have gotten sticky ones.
I am not sure either as they do not seem to communicate a lot given most SH are PIs and seem to have trouble selling the potential to larger institutions.

https://www.trinitydelta.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scancell-Update-110520.pdf

https://www.trinitydelta.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scancell-Outlook-110520.pdf

https://t.co/mZuSJRY5Vy

Two new Trinity Delta Reports

No worries OaW,
Agree would be good to be able to invest directly in Aptamer Group but Paraytec are working very closely with them and yes Aptamer Group are looking at LFD and commercial partners.
The test may be ready quicker than you think as the progress been tremendous recently and they are really stepping up recruitment etc.
The hand sanitiser produced by Pharm2farm farm is another real driver of growth and Kirkstall are making progress as well.
Paraytec have this technology used and trialled currently by GSK, AZN and Fuji with results any time soon so there is a lot going on.
Is there also the Mologic one with ODX as well.I did think that Avct May get access to that one given the previous tie up with Affimers.
As you say the commercial tie up is the big factor in determine success of test and if Aptamer Group announce something then that will be the real game changer.
ATB

Older and wiser,
I am in both here and Avct and hate comparisons between the two as quite simply you can’t do as both are so different.
However one similarity is they are both working on a rapid point of care antigen test though obviously one is using Aptamers and one Affimers.
Urs we know Avct are more advanced and have the 2 commercial partnerships in place whereas the Aptamer Group have yet to finalise any partnerships.
It is not a Paraytec test so please research further it is an Aptamer Group test which has made tremendous progress in last few weeks and it will incorporate Paraytec detection technology.
The diagnostic testing market is huge so please just accept that once either Company manages to get a test to market with defined specificity and sensitivity then we can judge which one may or may not be effective.
So please if you are not invested here just leave us to our dreams which if you took the time and trouble to research this and other BRH investments would realise how realistic this market cap is.
As for the other one being the real McCoy yes I agree but why can’t both achieve a decent return.
The idea of anyone test cornering the market with the main competitive threat being another AIM Company means you really do not understand this marketplace

Hi Italian,
Hope you are safe and well.
Yes should provide a big clue

Lots of posts here today.
Think any TR1 will add a lot of clarity to what the real potential here is.
When we found out who has taken the placement shares should be very revealing.
Any institutional holder and particularly someone like Invesco would be huge.If you know anything about the history of MTFB then you will know the exact reasons why I would be very positive if this happened.
Invesco were the single most supportive investor in MTFB since June 2015.They took part in every raise including the initial mention to list in US.
They always wanted to maintain a significant holding and even sold a few to stay below the takeover threshold a couple of years back.
They were always regarded as the most supportive shareholder by the previous BoD and even on CRL day it was the risk dept that caused the huge sell off rather than the fund side.
As MTFB struggled to convince the FDA about Iclaprim then they on upusky sold down their position more.
Them buying back or someone like them would imo be a huge positive given their previous experience here.

It would give Approval and if it proved useful vs 2ndary respiratory bacterial infections and more Data was gathered re mechanisms of liver toxicity and this further satisfied the FDA it would be huge progress.
You must understand the value of an Approved AB

PS. The original Inspire trial was to cost £35-40m but that was 2 phase 3 but only 1 is required.To last 24-30 months normally.

Cal see official minutes

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/MTFB/motif-bio-confirms-receipt-of-fda-meeting-minutes-3k9fuxzexsyalse.html

That gives specific indication of what is required .One phase 3 HABP/VABP trial with specific work on mechanisms for liver toxicity.
FYI they already have a trial protocol.

Most of us have been very clear there are broadly 2 options or pathways forward here.
1.A straight RTO involving MTFB as a pure cash shell.The current market cap of MTFB is arguably about right/too high.Present and future on who RTO involves imo.
2.A RTO involving the additional asset of Iclaprim with Hercules blessing.This is the potential catalyst imo and next week may give a few more clues.
We know that a single HABP/VABP phase 3 trial is required with some specific endpoint work on liver toxicity.
We know it will follow the Inspire model so we know the comparator and protocol etc.Will last 24-30 months and cost in order of £20-25m but will allow a NDA to be submitted for ABSSSI claim as well as HABP.Approval would be worth an absolute mint.
What we don’t know is how far the Covid 19/AMR situation has improved this timeline and the issue of DILI.
The provisions of 21st Century Cures Act are beneficial and the possibility of an EUA for Iclaprim in Covid 19 patients with say kidney issues may be a possibility we simply don’t know.
ATB

Yep thanks Mole,
As we are largely dealing with half truths and lack of full info the board imo has sorely missed the input of informed and balanced posters like Mole/ Devex/ ToT etc.
Yes we have great sleuths on here and there have been great posts by RegD and many others but it is the opinions of likes of Mole I consider closest to the truth

SR,as you know I try and take a balanced view and agree with Looed about your post.
Why FRR did not simply return the 99% in 2017 and hence nit commit a “ material breach” we don’t know.Was a big deal conditional on retaining it?
Did they think they could retain it by doing work in it as they did seem to ramp up exploration/ production efforts in 2018 in a possible attempt to improve their prospects before the courts.?
Did the failure of UD2 prove pivotal as nit sure whether this is in 99% or 1%.
Agree if the transfer of the asset to a US subsidiary was tried it could be called illegal as it dies seem to directly contravene terms of Cayman court.
Also supported by Court efforts to seek jurisdiction in US courts plus can’t see why GG would agree to transfer of asset given the obvious animosity between the parties.
So if these are the facts then I can see why arbitration court reached the conclusion but there is obviously more which we simply dont know about without having full judgement.
As for future still in the balance as I really think the only way out is for all parties to come to an agreement maybe having heads banged together by US.
However the history of FRR in compromising is not good and I think Justice Kawaley was right in advising FRR and Hope to teach an OOS.
Sadly I think ZM will resort to further court action to try and drag the process on in the hope of bringing about an agreement but this has nit worked in the past and I have a feeling that continuing to do things you have always done you will usually end up with what you have always got.
I really hope this is coming to a head but until we get a clear abd full picture here we arecsim0ky guesssung.
Back to the bunker

Thanks Haywain,
I remember selling a virus diagnostic point of care test in the past which targeted both a P and a GP in the virus.I recalled the GPs are normally on the outside rather than in the middle of the nucleocapsid so just wondered if it was the spike protein.
As you say the most important bit is they have an Aptamer that recognise the specific Covid 19 S protein and their very recent work would indicate they have made real progress with this area re specificity.

Hi Snark,
Yes very well.I did fully come out of this( apart from one of the Shard placings) but of course this is worth a very small amount now just had not crystallised the loss.I don’t post on shares where I have no interest.
I have come back in here with a much smaller amount due to BoD changes and low market cap and potential.
Have had a look at RNSs and still think future value here is largely dependent on Iclaprim and yes the potential of LaMellar/MGB pipeline may be great I simply don’t know them but they will be very early stage.
But yes very well and completely over the CRL and you have to learn from those events which helps make you a better investor/ trader.
Obviously the pharma space has been really hot lately so let us hope it continues for a while yet.
Let us se what Monday brings and whether there is an RNS about Hercules and Iclaprim
Enjoy rest of w/ end

Morning.I don’t know all the ins and outs but for my own simple mind is this what has basically happened.
The PSA had 2 phases a 20 year exploration phase and then an production phase.
In 2017 the GG questioned whether FRR had fulfilled its requirements re “ exploration” of 99% of the area and took FRR to arbitration as FRR refused to return the 99%.
The Arbitration court agreed with the GG.Who have now decided to cancel 100% of the PSA due to a “ material breach”.

Hasiba,
As I said earlier I need to come up to speed with all the news and overall picture here as I have just not being looking at it closely in the last few months.So will try and look over w/ end more closely but one thought.
The 10th May deadline would have been inserted to give an opportunity for a 3rd party to buy out Iclaprim or pro ride the finance to complete the additional trials asked by FDA ie what was requested of Tamark.This has not happened so no easy quick win for Hercules so they are tied in to their warrants and Iclaprim is no good to them as security.
So their best option to get money back is to back MTFB with an RTO.So the 2 options are a cash shell RTO with LaMellar/MGB etc which in itself is probably not worth the current market cap or an RTO which includes the other assets plus Iclaprim and that is why these imo announcements have been made prior to 10th May.
New that potentially is worth a lot more especially given the Covid 19 environment we are operating in where things like FDA Approval and the whole AMR issue have brought things into much sharper focus.

Not sure if they are still receiving this or some other UKRI or have applied for one but they can repurpose the grant for specific Covid 19 purposes according to UKRI.

Tsbs.
Remember the old Nelson Bunker Hunt saying.
You owe the bank a million £ you are in trouble.You owe the bank a billion £ the banks in trouble.
How big is your black hole lol