Member Info for JamYesterday

Does anyone think that a potential partner for AV6000 is waiting first to see if the efficacy data carries over to the Tnbc cohort before committing? That is truly a multi billion dollar market segment.

Found it. PFS not yet reached. Excellent news, for patients and shareholders alike.

"Median PFS in the SGC cohort has not been reached with median follow up exceeding 5 mos in the combined cohort (9 mos in Ph Ia)."

No PFS update?

How do you rate Avalyn's inhaled product in clinical trials already? I uncovered this in my online research:

Avalyn Pharma is perhaps Nuformix’s most direct competitor, as their entire business model is built around developing inhaled versions of existing IPF blockbusters using nebulizers. They are significantly further ahead in clinical development:

AP01 (Inhaled Pirfenidone): Avalyn has already completed its Phase 1b (ATLAS) clinical trials, which showed exceptional safety and stabilized lung fibrosis scores. They have already advanced this into a global Phase 2b clinical trial (the MIST study) for patients with PPF.

AP02 (Inhaled Nintedanib): They completed Phase 1a testing in healthy volunteers and patients, and are pushing forward into a Phase 2 trial (the AURA study) for IPF.

I came across Nfx this weekend for the first time, and am intrigued by many aspects: minute MC, great technical base, ODD designation, trend to combination therapies in Biopharma drug delivery platforms.

I can't speak to the quality or longevity of management, as a newcomer.

Online research pinpoints two potential negatives which maybe someone can address:

The "Repurposed Drug" Valuation Problem

NXP002 is a novel formulation of tranilast. While repurposing an old drug drastically reduces safety risks, it also means Big Pharma will scrutinize Nuformix's patent estate with a magnifying glass.

Since the base molecule itself is old, Nuformix relies entirely on cocrystal/formulation patents. If a potential partner’s legal team thinks there is even a 5% chance a competitor could tweak the molecule slightly and bypass Nuformix’s patents, they will walk away from a deal.

Fierce Competition in the IPF Pipeline

Nuformix is not operating in a vacuum. The IPF/PPF pipeline is currently one of the most crowded and fiercely contested spaces in medicine. Dozens of biotechs are pitching assets to the exact same pool of 5 or 6 buyers. Big Pharma companies have finite R&D budgets and a limited capacity to run clinical trials. If a competitor comes along with an asset that is already entering Phase 1 trials, a partner might choose them over Nuformix, even if Nuformix's preclinical data looks slightly better.

Currently I am investigating if there are indeed any rival stuff delivery systems entering P1 that might challenge Nfx.

A balanced view:

Is an out-licensing deal highly possible? Absolutely. Nuformix's recent fundraise to specifically tailor data to partner feedback proves they are in the room having serious conversations.

But is it "just a question of time"? No. In biotech, a deal is never guaranteed until the signatures are dry. Potential partners may look at the data and decide they want to see Nuformix fund and run a Phase 1a safety study themselves before they buy it—a scenario that would force Nuformix to raise significantly more capital and dilute shareholders.

High reward comes with still high risk.

Looks like Trump's lost this battle. And so he will lose interest in Iran and the Straits of Hormuz, and focus his aggression penchant elsewhere. Cuba next?

Fair enough, Pl75. I'll get my coat and keep my online research for my own education.

VertizeaSun,

Yes, that is exactly the strategy, and it’s the core of why the lack of an ASCO poster doesn't change the underlying investment thesis.

The company's primary corporate objective is to secure a major product-based licensing partnership for AVA6000 (faridoxorubicin) before initiating late-stage, expensive Phase II trials.

Management has consistently outlined a specific strategy regarding how they intend to balance clinical progress, partnering, and their cash runway.

The Strategy: Use the ASCO Data to Close the Deal

When biotech companies talk about "the data maturing," they are directly talking to Big Pharma business development (BD) teams.

Avacta's plan has been to gather complete, durable data from the Phase Ib cohorts—specifically in Salivary Gland Cancer (SGC) and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC)—to serve as the definitive proof of concept for the pre|CISION® platform. The ASCO publication abstract acts as the formal, verified packet of data that these potential partners have been waiting to see.

ASCO is arguably the most competitive oncology conference in the world. Its selection committee is notoriously stringent and prioritizes practice-changing, randomized, or late-stage clinical trials.

Is it significant? Structurally, no; sentiment-wise, yes.

It confirms that Avacta is behaving like a standard, early-stage biotech—quietly accumulating incredibly strong, platform-validating data without the theatricality of a major ASCO stage presentation. The lack of a physical poster doesn't change the fact that Big Pharma business development teams look at the data in the abstract, not the location of a poster board in a Chicago convention hall.

The real catalyst to watch now isn't a conference presentation, but rather the upcoming initiation of their Phase II pivotal trials and potential partnering discussions.

Avacta receiving a "publication-only" designation is standard for where the asset currently stands, based on several factors:

The Data Cut-off Lag: Abstract submissions for ASCO close months before the event (usually around February). The abstract published under e15113 primarily reflects a data cut-off featuring 19 Salivary Gland Cancer (SGC) patients from late last year, with only 8 additional patients across other cohorts. To a major ASCO reviewer, an incremental update on an ongoing Phase Ib trial is rarely given prime stage estate.

Early-Phase & Single-Arm: The data is from an open-label, single-arm Phase Ia/Ib trial. Without a randomized control arm (e.g., AVA6000 vs. standard Doxorubicin head-to-head), ASCO rarely grants coveted oral or poster presentation slots unless it is a massive, multi-hundred-patient dataset.

Orphan/Rare Disease Focus: Salivary Gland Cancer is a niche, ultra-rare indication. ASCO committees inevitably prioritize posters focusing on massive markets like non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, or colorectal cancer.

"Made any money this year fellah?"

Yes as a matter of fact, I have, thank you. AVCT, SEA and BRES. A concentrated portfolio of pre-revenue small cap UK companies. Next up for a multi-bagger, I hope and expect....CMRS. And one disappointment, SAVE.

Meanwhile, PRD has flat-lined, unless you were savvy enough to sell in Jan before the placing.

Jealous, Dickie?

Is it possible that PRD shareholders will benefit, even a tad, in this potential biogenic reservoir at scale?

A truly interesting test case of a dwarf-sized company with a supposedly world scale , data driven resource, facing a hard regulatory deadline coming up.

Well I'm in, and have been quietly adding more blocks in the last couple of days whilst this seller does his thing. This is a multi bagger in the making, if the drilling consistency is confirmed.

No s h I t Sherlock.

Pj70, exactly so.

For some unfathomable reason (to me, anyway) BRES hasn't been able to secure the $45mn debt funding with a jv partner for P1, with the original DFS numbers. Mike can gloss it over as much as he does, but that is a fact.

So they appoint a heavy hitter broker, after DFS 2.0 . This isn't just to let IIs acquire shares in the open market. This will be for lining up a partial funding of P1 with BRES issuing more shares, and a majority funding by debt, unless a jv partner can be found and delivered quickly, at the project level. That latter option was always Mike's preference, we know that. But if he wants Orom Cross to be in production starting next year, BRES has to make a calculated decision that deals with the urgency of funding in good time, as it's nearly half way through 2026 already.

Is it at all possible that Cavendish can work miracles and get a premium equity placing away, given the mismatch between MC and NPV10? Failing that, an attempt will be made to boost the sp, with a roadshow to IIs, and dilute from a higher level. I reckon BRES will need a minimum of $15mn cash raised in equity, which is about 25% of current MC. Quite a challenge, but time marches on.

Happy to be proved wrong, as a LTH.

And today's Rampety ramp poster is.....

I do note the choice of words about the "preference" for funding P1 at the project level. So equity or other funding within Bres in some form isn't being ruled out.

Donalb, I would say that is simply a roll over pair of trades.

With reading for a better understanding, and why is it crucial for Seascape to secure it:

1. Bottlenecks at Malaysia Petroleum Management (MPM)

Petronas, via its regulatory arm MPM, has been incredibly successful with its recent bid rounds. Between MBR 2024 and MBR 2025, Petronas signed a record number of Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs)—more than they have handled in a decade. Managing the sheer volume of technical data evaluations, vetting new international entrants, and processing the paperwork for dozens of blocks simultaneously has created an administrative bottleneck.

2. The Shift to "Advantaged Energy" and Frontier Vetting

Petronas has shifted its strategic focus toward what it calls "Advantaged Energy"—assets that are high-margin, low-carbon, and close to existing infrastructure. Because blocks like PM507 sit directly next to proven shallow-water infrastructure, competition is fierce. Vetting multiple consortiums to ensure they have the financial capability to move quickly (rather than sitting on the acreage) takes time. MPM is intentionally prioritizing operators who can guarantee rapid development timelines.

3. Rigorous Joint Venture and Fiscal Negotiations

Unlike simple licensing rounds, Malaysia’s process involves deep negotiation over specific fiscal models, such as the Small Field Asset (SFA) terms or Revenue-Over-Cost (COR) terms. Furthermore, Petronas frequently mandates that international independents partner with its domestic upstream arm, Petronas Carigali, or local players. Hammering out the exact split of participating interests, operatorship rights, and minimum financial commitments behind closed doors naturally pushes out announcement dates.

4. Overlapping Subsurface Technical Appraisals

For a block like PM507, which is part of a "Multi-TCF play" that extends from adjacent fields like Temaris, bidders (including Seascape) submit highly detailed 3D seismic interpretations. Petronas conducts its own parallel technical audits to verify these resource estimates before finalizing the contract boundaries. They want to ensure they aren't accidentally giving away massive extension structures under terms that favor the operator too heavily.

For Seascape and its investors, the wait is highly strategic. Because they have already mapped out extensive prospects that cross over into PM507, a formal award would instantly transform their localized Temaris plans into a much broader, multi-field regional development hub.

Rosso123, that summary of how Lyon screwed the Sound shareholders reminded me very much of the way Maxwell and Family behaved in the end.