Member Info for kipper1960

Interesting post, Sorcerer, thanks. I had not considered options 1 and 2. Both possible, although unlikely - the big Pharma would have to really get their skates on, as only 2 weeks until the EGM.

Van, sorry I thought this was being read by people who could distinguish between opinion based on facts in the public domain and ramping. But I suppose if you cast the net wide enough you are going to catch a few morons

Interesting to note that OBI has a successful fund raise today and SP is up about 30% today. They are a company of similar size as DEST and in the same market sector. Their cash raise was at a 40% premium; yesterday's SP being about 5p, with the fundraise at 7p. I guess it goes to show that if DEST decided to raise cash to fund XF-73 trials - and that's a big if - then the fundraise could also be at a significant premium

Personally I don't see Ondine Bio as a direct competitor to DEST. Although they are both attacking the same issue - AMR - they are completely different methodologies. XF-73 stops infection through medication, whereas OBI uses a device for Photodisinfection. Given that AMR is one of WHO's top 10 issues, there is plenty of room for more than one methodology to tackle the same problem.

Excellent post, BBN, thanks. Its clear that CT and the BOD are not really fussed about the short term SP and won't be deflected from doing what needs to be to achieve their L/T goal of maximising shareholder value - even if the SP takes a hammering in the S/T. I also thought CT's presentation was excellent and bore little resemblance to the RNS - that's why the SP damage was done before the presentation started! My guess is that most of the major II shareholders, plus Bill Love, Nigel Rudd and other large shareholders on the Board are all onside with CT's strategy and will hold tight at these current MCAP levels. There is clearly (IMHO) a massive upside to this share but we are talking years, not months.

This comment was embedded in the RNS "Currently, the review is not actively considering an offer for the company", which kind of implies that an offer for the company has already been received and rejected.

ThunderRoad, I agree DEST is not a share for short term traders - time span between significant news is just too long for some and not enough feedback from the company. I believe the XF-73 deal will be announced 'soon' but I think its a complex deal which is why its taking a long time. I've been quietly adding at these ridiculously low levels (today's trades at about 25.3 - 25.4 are in fact BUYS, not SELLS, by the way), so one person's concern is another person's opportunity. Its a matter of being patient, focusing on the fundamentals and ignoring moronic BB chat and bloggers with their own agendas.

Ive looked at 3 sources of information on the costs of Ph. 3 clinicals. All come up with similar numbers; around $20 - $25m for trialling an Anti-Infective drug using a placebo comparator. Interesting that the most expensive P3 trials are for Pain and Anesthesia category drug ($53m) and the least expensive are Dermatotology ($12m). These are just averages and the cost will depend on the number of patients in the trial. Due to the high cost and time of a Ph3 trial, the partner is only going to do it once - it doesn't make sense to do 1 or 2 small Xf-73 ph.3 trials first, as you are suggesting - that's what Phase 2 is for.

Yes, M3 will probably happen more quickly than XF-73, but since the market size for the XF-73 platform is an order of magnitude greater than that of M3, then XF-73 is undoubtably the lead product, IMO

Thanks, Tllerman and Reserved for your useful posts; however, I am not sure that the cost per patient of Ph. 3 trials at Ondine is relevant to that of XF-73. Even though XF-73 and Ondine are in the same space - combatting AMR, they use radically different methodologies. XF-73 is a drug, taken by the patient before and after surgery. Whereas Ondine uses a device that photo-disinfects the surgical area using a form of laser treatment. So, in one case you have a very large number of capsules each of relatively low unit cost and on the other you have an expensive medical device, one for each operating theatre. Both may or may not be great solutions to the problem, but as far as Ph. 3 clinical trials are concerned, the clinical trial plans, numbers of patients and costs will be entirely different.

In the case of XF-73 I am sure the cost Ph. 3 trials will run to many millions but that cost will be bourne by the partner in terms of up front and ongoing cash, in exchange for a share of the royalties. I don't think it is the intention for DEST to cover the trial costs directly by themselves.

I think you make some great points, Volmer. The Sabela deal was poor, not only because of low upfront, but that we were forced to raise funds to strengthen the balance sheet. I think CT would never have made such an agreement. NC must have felt he had to deliver a deal, even a poor one. I think NC was out of his depth. CT has effectively said it’s more important to get the right deal, even if it takes longer . The other big difference is that XF-73 is a much bigger fish than M3. AMR is a much bigger health issue than C- Difficile, and big pharma need to crack it. So, we have the power and the experienced team to deliver a very good deal.

I was thinking in terms of the company issuing new shares and the pharma acquiring these for cash. Its a win/win because DEST strengthens its balance sheet and has cash in the bank for working capital for a few years and the pharma have a significant stake in a company that is likely to grow in value by virtue of their partnership with DEST. And this share issue would be tied into the XF-73 Ph. 3 and commercialisation deal.

Very happy for someone to point out flaws in my argument!

Noix, I think there is an option 4; License deal for whole XF-73 platform to include phase 3 trial and commercialisation plus a cash investment for a significant minor equity stake (e.g. 10%?). I think this investment would be at a price nearer the broker valuation (£2.75) than the current market price (£0.33).

Don't know which option CT is aiming for. I think a full takeover at this stage is unlikely because of the difference between the valuation that our major shareholders would accept and the price a buyer would be prepared to pay, given there is still risk attached to our major assets. However, a full takeover would be the cleanest solution, if a price could be agreed.

I know what you mean, OldDog, but I really think patience is needed here. I am confident that CT will pull one out of the hat, but its going to be a large and complex deal with lawyers involved both sides of the Atlantic and Board approval from the Big pharma and all these things take time (especially in Pharma!). CT will be keeping other options open, just to keep the pressure on. I suspect that those who can't be patient will have already got out, because it makes no sense getting out at these levels, in my opinion.

Excellent post, Candid. Agree 100%

Agree we are better off without JW - he and his lemmings were the main reason behind the recent 40% drop in SP on zero news. But it also says a lot about how fickle the AIM market - huge MCAP swings with no change in fundamentals. IF it is CT's plan for a NASDAQ listing, it would be a much honest market to be listed on than AIM.

CT has plenty of experience dealing with big parma companies and clearly he has seen something very special in XF-73 to jump on board. I think his experience will count in negotiating a partnering deal for XF-73 trials, licensing and fundraising . He has dropped a few hints that he is in discussions with MULTIPLE parties, which he can have leverage during negotiations. I am guessing that when Neil Clarke made a deal with Sebela for M3, they were the only party at the table and so had the negotiating power; hence it was a bad deal for DEST due to the discounted fundraise. But CT is talking with multiple parties and can if necessary play one against the other to get the best deal possible. I think that is where his experience will come in but is the reason why this has taken longer than some people expected

Bantham, in my opinion you are being very harsh by stating Board doesn’t have a good grip of the situation. I would agree they were sloppy with the wording of the most recent RNS by not clarifying the implications of changing the delivery mode of M3. Let's hope they will be more careful next time. The rest of the 2 RNSs were OK for me. I don't believe the last RNS caused the SP capitulation. The large seller was selling chunks long before the RNS and this kept the price hovering around 70p. The seller possibly used the RNS to accelerate their sell off, price goes down, stops are hit, traders panic etc etc.

For me nothing has changed fundamentally, so the investment risk hasn't changed. The biggest risk is the AIM market itself especially for an illiquid stock. Large buyers and sellers then can have an exaggerated impact on the SP, either way; for me that risk was known at the time of my investment decision. Frankly, M3 is a sideshow compared to XF-73, and a badly worded RNS about M3 doesn't change the value of the company, nor the risk. Unless the fundamentals do change I am going to sit tight and wait for the XF-73 deal RNS.

Thanks for the info, Alamo. When you say "Wade are out", are you referring to the Wade family holding only, or that of Jemima Wade as well?

Yes, wouldn’t it be great if an ex Director of Jazz Pharma was CEO of DEST………….oh

Nice summary, Sorcerer; I agree 100%