Member Info for Leggster

Laz, I agree I find your interpretation more likely than those who fear a milking scenario. I do not see a scenario where JR and TM do not want to see their work move forward. They have invested their IP and will want to see this make a difference to patient outcomes. Some patience I feel is what is needed. GLA

Happy for the BOD to stay as is, plenty of experience and contrary to some selective info being shared plenty of examples of adding value to companies. Just use an AI if you want some balance compared to some commentary here. Reward is also aligned reasonably for the sector. In this phase consistency matters. GLA

Fully agree the BOD are not priced extravagantly, their renumeration is fine for the market and decent value for shareholders, particularly once a deal is over the line, which they are hopefully spending hours in meetings with Lawyers agreeing terms, which I will happily accept over PaR as well. GLA

Everyone here seems rather disillusioned, the PR was not inspiring for the event but it is important to attend, I am still of the opinion that changes in the BOD would be disruptive, the silence I still interprete as pointing to deals being worked through.

Well the news void continues, hopefully a harbinger of material news in the imminent future. GLA

Potnak

I have posted previously that I think an option to acquire deal is the most likely outcome (or prolonged salami slicing) the SP is too low to agree a takeover, licensing is in the same cost ballpark as acquire to buy. My prediction FWIW is an upfront payment of 50-100m with a partner appointed CEO and then milestones for achievement with the first being the tox study results. News blackout I find meaningful no peer review of the results I suspect has been dictated in any NDA. I hope for substantive news in the next couple of months. Only my view GLA

Yes some news flow would be appreciated, these are testing times waiting for news Perhaps the peer review of the test results... GLA

The attacks on Dr Parke as the tight choice to lead seem to be misguided as do the suggestions that he would not act in the interest of shareholders. My research suggests in multiple previous roles that he has been involved or present during a number of shareholders value generating events. Our 'temporary' CEO is capable of leading during the end game and has my full confidence. The fact that no perm CEO has been recruited for me is a major signal that some sort of deal is being worked through. GLA

Nice to see the RNS and I also believe it is bland because of other discussions inflight, as always it's a matter of time and patience for news

Num4 I choose to believe that this investment will deliver a great return. I believe in the molecules, the patent cover, the potential market sizes and the BOD on science matters. I still believe this is on the verge of pivoting in terms of share price and that we will all be rewarded for our patience in due course. Though I can understand the frustration of holders yet to see the momentum starting. GLA

High risk investing in small BioTechs comes with Highs and Lows, by definition these companies are not the biggest fish in the ponds. It's not a surprise that it is more difficult for them to hit deadlines. Their suppliers will also support bigger fish who they will give priority to when assigning resource. All businesses face challenges with schedules and delays SAR is no different. Those who lack stomach for the ride should sell up and move on, posting on boards won't change events. I will continue happily accumulating more during these quiet periods and concentrate on the patents, results and potential return. GLA

SAR do historically like Tuesdays for news let's hope for something tomorrow...

....or other event. But nothing yet fingers crossed for a material event!!!

Hit post by mistake on my mobile earlier very annoying

Yes particularly given SPs comment about poor share price performance and doing something about it. Trusting souls like myself may have assumed that this would be regular news, a major transaction or oth

Potnak, knowing SAR the values of a deal of this nature, if it were to happen, will be kept undisclosed, still leaving us in the dark, lol GLA

SOG, late response as I have been working but, there are multiple examples of option to buy deals between pharma and biotechs. Here are a few examples

* Novartis acquiring IFM Tre and IFM Due (Announced 2019): Novartis entered into option agreements with IFM Therapeutics for their NLRP3 antagonists (IFM Tre) and a second program (IFM Due). These were for autoimmune diseases. Novartis later exercised its option to acquire both companies as their lead programs entered clinical development, indicating successful early-stage progress.

* Takeda acquiring Maverick Therapeutics (Exercised): Takeda exercised its option to acquire Maverick Therapeutics, a company focused on T-cell engagers for cancer immunotherapy. This acquisition followed an earlier investment and option agreement, triggered by promising preclinical data.

* Takeda acquiring GammaDelta Therapeutics (Exercised): Similar to Maverick, Takeda also acquired GammaDelta Therapeutics, which specialized in gamma-delta T-cell therapies for cancer. This acquisition likely stemmed from a prior option agreement based on the biotech's progress.

* AbbVie acquiring Mitokinin (Exercised): AbbVie acquired Mitokinin, a company developing therapies for Parkinson's disease. This acquisition followed an earlier option agreement, triggered by the advancement of Mitokinin's lead drug candidate.

* Gilead Sciences acquiring CymaBay Therapeutics (Announced February 2025): While recently announced and not yet fully closed, Gilead's agreement to acquire CymaBay, focused on liver diseases, could have originated from an earlier option or investment that gave Gilead the right to acquire the company based on the progress of its lead asset, seladelpar.

For me the attractiveness is the risk reduction to the pharma why buy everything today when for an initial payment you can have an option to buy once progress is proven. It attracts me as a shareholder as the SP can rise immediately on future buyout value but also offers benefits to both the biotech and the pharma. Any fiull TO today is likely to be rejected by the BOD when based on current share price. In this model current SP is less of a factor as ultimate price is linked to value later in the lifecycle. Any way its idle speculation on possibilities and other views are just as likely to be in play. Although I do think the lack of events and comments suggest something will unveil itself in due course. Good luck

Potnak, I accept that the BOD have talked about licensing but have also consistently talked about considering any options on the table. I personally think the delays, the lack of the peer review being published, the work on the new molecules, the snails pace on 1802, the ponderously slow movement now that they are no longer preclinical suggests to me that something else is happening behind the scenes. If a deal was not incoming I think we would have seen faster progress on at least one element. IMO the agenda is being influenced by another party as due diligence and detail negotiation is completed.

SOG Although a full takeover appeals to me I think logically a pharma would not want that upfront risk at this stage I think a 'Option to Acquire' deal is more likely with an upfront cash injection from the pharma and milestone payments for agreed achievements eg trial progression, patents on the new BBB molecules etc. This solves SARs cash flow issues delivering possibly material R and D funds and allows the pharma not to have to pay the significant costs of an acquisition before we prove further progress. They would agree the acquisition price when closing the deal and have fixed triggers in the contract.

IMO this is a viable commercial outcome, it gives the aging SAR team a route to monetisation in a documented timeline. Removes the frustration of constantly extending the cash runway. Rewards shareholders (no low ball price risk at TO) and gives the pharma an acceptable risk profile for an investment. Probably allows acceleration from SARs normally pace with funds and expertise the pharma will add. In the round this seems to me the most probable outcome, deals have to give both sides something and this type of structure feels to me that it works. GLA

FWIW I tend to agree, if a JV is in the pipeline the partner may actually carry out the next steps either in house or use an existing sourced relationship at lower cost than SAR can access. Delaying tactics during finalisation of the agreement plus proving SKiL can deliver additional pipeline could all fit the path to execution, if they can't get the deal over the line then they can still go it alone with the new dirty batch. In my mind the non appointment of a new CEO always smelt like a TO or a JV wanting to implant one of their own after the ink is on the deal. Hopefully clarity in May (or not) I like to remember SPs comment at the last AGM that we may not need another. GLA

Clearly no one likes uncertainty however a favoured nations clause IMO is not likely to impact any SAR negotiation. Lots of trials to complete and then a final deal in a license likely to be a percentage of sales. In TO mode the products would be new to market and I would suggest in this context you would launch first in the US anyway to maximize commercial return and then price other markets in line with US pricing. Let's hope we hear that the tox studies have start this week. GLA