Member Info for KonarA

@ray - agreed. Given the size of the raise and the dilution that entailed, I think we are entitled to a better explanation from the BoD around the strategy going forward. The presentation should have been ahead of the GM not the AGM.

@Chester - also agreed that it is vital that we get Moditope into the clinic and find out if it really is the blockbuster that it purports to be. But again, this is not the first raise with that same stated ambition.

I do strongly believe that SCLP need to focus on getting these trials underway ASAP.

I didn't vote, and i am still not convinced i should vote in favour.

One of my biggest frustrations with this company, that i have expressed many times before, is the amount of money they have raised with the same stated ambition. This will be the 4th time they have raised money to fund the SCIB1 trials and they still have not happened. When invested in Scancell the shares in issue would have resulted in return of £2.45 if the company sold for 1 Billion. Following this proposed raise it will be just over £1.

For me, Scancell needed to do a much better job of explaining why, all of a sudden, they needed to raise all this extra money, and not just roll out the same old "We need this money to advance the trials to raise the value for shareholders"

@Chester18

"Which ever way you dice it the only reasons to convert at this moment in time must be positive."

that's the way i see it. They could have left the CLN and never convert to shares. The fact that have converted to shares is because they think that is worth more, be it in the short or long term.

"Konar, i understand your point but they haven't lost 1p per share if they sell their cln shares for 13p each they've made 6.8p per share and still own the 13p (oo) shares to make a profit on in the future. So basically the sale of the cln. shares subsidises the new purchase."

so either i am very lost or you are. Not sure which!

Vulpes loan Scancell 1 million
Rather than take repayment Vulpes convert that to shares at 6p.
They no own 1 share that they have in effect paid 6p for.
They sell that one share at 12p.
They take that 12p and invest it in the OO at 13p.
They now have 1 share and they are down 1p. It's not a profit if you buy back the thing you already owned at more money surely??

just a thought... would Vulpes taking up the CLN, dilute Redmile sufficiently to allow Redmile to invest further without exceeding landmark % ownership?

" But to answer your question remember the cln is at 6.2p not 13p is so they could sell at below oo price and still make a quick profit. "

Yes not forgetting the fact that the CLN is 6.2p.. but one share is still one share. If they convert at 6.2p, sell at say 12p (for argument's sake) and buy back in the OO at 13p... they've still got one share but lost a penny on each share.

I agree i don't think this will effect their OO entitlement - unless the CLN terms had a condition that said they would carry an OO entitlement, so long as executed prior to the OO (irrespective of the OO terms) *shrug*. Don't even know if that is possible.

The only obvious purpose for this to me, is if they are anticipating a short time rise in the SP. But even then, unless they were planning on liquidating their entire holding, what would be the point?

"Equally I wouldnt see this as a good sign if they've bought these just to sell to allow them to take part in oo for their existing shareholding (and I doubt the bod would either) as that would definitely take us to oo if not below and would hardly be a sign of confidence."

Am i missing something obvious here? If Vulpes started selling these on the open market, they would very quickly bring the SP below the offer price. What would be the advantage to them selling below the OO and then buying back in the OO?

that was at the OP btw

on what basis?

tbh i have stopped watching it so closely. Most of the major patents are progressing as expected, and all the divisional are too much to keep up with. When I have noticed updates, someone else has usually either already posted it here, or did shortly after.

could simply be that the accounts are due. Given the accounts are for the period prior to the recent raise, then they are going to show a sizeable loss. Since the SP has historically dropped on publishing these accounts, people may just be anticipating that.

Having said that, I do not believe the annual accounts (and notification of the AGM) has ever been left this late, suggesting they are holding back from something imminent that may materially change that AGM. My Spidey senses are telling me a deal is close to completion.

gonna share the details of that overheard conversation? ;-)

just noticed we are now above a 2 year high.

"Inan,
That’s a bit like me writing a web browser and valuing my company at £5billion.
... just look at Microsoft sales."

No it isn't - one is an area of unmet need, and the other is a saturated market.

From that website:

"For instance, non-qualification would apply to a company that is being sold or wound up, as well as a company with dual trading on a recognised overseas exchange."

I think that would rule out SCLP shares given that they are dual listed in Frankfurt.

% difference doesn't really come into it..

You asked for 75457
You got 45808

Sum is (45808/75457) × 100 = 60.7%

You got 60.7% of what you asked for.

The EGM is behind closed doors. No external attendees.

simple explanation is that LSE runs a simple check.. was the trade above or below the mid price average, and then displays as a buy or a sell accordingly. If you manage to buy below the average or sell above, then it will be recorded incorrect on here.

Listed companies are ineligible for the Future Fund.

Surely this study is the cue for the Vaccine Taskforce to get right behind the Scancell and University of Nottingham approach.