London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

This is speculation, but it’s possible they’ve cored the basement and are discussing results with Chimeara before proceeding.

If they have interesting basement coring samples and want to test, fracture or stimulate for commercial hydrogen, they need a clear well to do this.

So if they don’t use the live well they got the samples from they’ll only need to do it with a future well.

This could explain the unusual lack of Inez comms, or they may simply be flow testing upper levels. Time will tell.

Given the share price has been trading well below the 8p benchmark (it was around 4.5p in April and has fallen further since, into the 1.4p–6p range over the past year), if that pattern continues, ImmuPharma will receive less than £6m in total — potentially significantly less, based on their own worked example (75% of benchmark → £4.5m).

I haven’t been able to find a specific, recent disclosure stating exactly how much has been received so far under this particular 2026 agreement (as opposed to the earlier, now-completed February 2025 agreement, which did yield a net gain — about £2m versus an original £1.875m subscription ImmuPharma PLC). Given how far the share price has fallen below the 8p benchmark since the deal was struck, you should treat the running total as likely to be coming in below the £6m headline figure, not above it.

Are they “fully funded to 2028”?

This needs an important caveat too. The company’s own statement was explicit that this is a planning assumption, not a guarantee: “The Directors are confident that the Fundraise, together with existing funding, will provide the Company with a clear cash runway to at least H2 2028… This cash runway is based on the assumption that the total level of receipts under the 2026 Lanstead Agreement… will be equal to the Subscription of £6 million.” ImmuPharma PLC

In other words: the H2 2028 runway figure assumes the share price averages at or above 8p for the next 20 months — i.e., it assumes a roughly 40-80%+ rally and sustained hold from where the shares were trading even at announcement, let alone from current levels around 4-5p. If the price stays where it’s been, the company will receive less cash than budgted, and the runway will be shorter than H2 2028. The company even flagged the asymmetry of this themselves: if the share price appreciates, the runway gets longer; the framing implicitly concedes that if it doesn’t, the runway gets shorter ImmuPharma PLC.

There’s a second layer of caution too: the WRAP retail offer of up to £1.5m was not underwritten, with no guarantee it would be fully subscribed, and its proceeds weren’t even included in the H2 2028 runway assumption ImmuPharma PLC — so that additional money was a bonus on top, not part of the core funding case.

Bottom line

ImmuPharma received the £6m gross cash on day one, but it’s structured to be paid straight back out over 20 months via a mechanism tied to the share price beating an 8p benchmark.

Given where the shares have actually traded, the realistic outcome is that they’ll receive less than £6m total from this facility — not the full headline amount.

The “funded to H2 2028” claim is the company’s best-case planning assumption, explicitly contingent on the share price averaging 8p+ — a level well above where the stock has traded for most of this year. If the price doesn’t recover, that runway shortens, and another fundraise becomes more likely sooner than 2028.

The Lanstead financing — how it actually works, and the honest answer to your question

This is a more complex structure than a normal share placing, and it matters a lot for understanding ImmuPharma’s real financial position. Let me break down both parts.

How the structure works

It’s a two-step mechanism, not a simple “Lanstead pays £6m, ImmuPharma keeps £6m” deal:

Step 1 — Subscription: Lanstead subscribed for 100,000,000 new shares at 6.0p each, for a gross subscription value of £6 million ImmuPharma PLC. ImmuPharma did receive this £6 million in cash upfront.

Step 2 — But it’s immediately pledged back: That £6 million is then immediately pledged by ImmuPharma to Lanstead under a “Sharing Agreement,” under which Lanstead pays it back to the company over 20 monthly instalments ImmuPharma PLC — but the size of each instalment floats depending on the share price.

So the £6m isn’t simply “received and banked.” It’s received, handed straight back to Lanstead, and then paid out again gradually over 20 months — with the total ImmuPharma actually ends up keeping depending entirely on where the share price trades during that window.

The mechanism that determines how much ImmuPharma actually gets back

The Sharing Agreement provides 20 monthly settlements of £300,000 each, measured against a benchmark price of 8.0 pence per share ImmuPharma PLC. Each month:

If the 20-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP) is above the 8p benchmark, ImmuPharma receives more than 100% of that month’s £300,000 settlement — there’s no upper limit ImmuPharma PLC

If the VWAP is below 8p, ImmuPharma receives less than 100% of that settlement, and there’s no way to claw back the shortfall later ImmuPharma PLC

The company’s own example table is blunt about the range of outcomes: at an average VWAP of 6p (75% of benchmark) over the full 20 months, ImmuPharma would receive £4.5m in total; at 8p (100% of benchmark) it would receive £6m; at 10p (125% of benchmark) it would receive £7.5m ImmuPharma PLC.

This is the key fact for your question: the 6p issue price Lanstead paid is not the price that determines the payback. The benchmark is 8p — noticeably higher than where the shares were trading at the time of the deal (the issue price itself was already a 13.7% discount to the prior closing price of 6.95p ImmuPharma PLC). So for ImmuPharma to get the full £6m back, the share price needs to rise and hold meaningfully above where it was trading when the deal was struck.

So — did they receive the full amount?

Not yet, and it’s not guaranteed they will. As of the most recent information I can find, this 20-month settlement schedule only began around one month following Admission, which is expected around 8 April 2026 ImmuPharma PLC — so settlements would have started roughly May 2026, and the full 20-month period runs to roughly December 2027.

Shareholders are asked to vote on a number of resolutions, including an amendment to teh Articles.

I emailed investor relations, here's a link - https://www.immupharma.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Proposed-articles-of-association.pdf

I asked Claude for a summary of changes:

I've now read the full proposed new Articles. Here's a plain-English summary of the key changes compared to the old ones:

**1. Deferred Shares formally codified (Article 7)**

The new Articles explicitly define the rights of the existing Deferred Shares (the 284 million 9p shares currently in issue). Crucially, these shares have *no voting rights, no dividends, and almost no rights on winding up* — and the company can cancel or buy them back for as little as £1 total. This is largely tidying up what already exists in practice.

**2. Director fee cap raised (Article 88)**

The old Articles capped total director fees at **£50,000 per year**. The new Articles raise this to **£200,000 per year**. This is a fourfold increase and is notable for a small-cap company that has been struggling financially.

**3. Virtual and hybrid AGMs permitted (Articles 44–46)**

The new Articles allow meetings to be held partly by electronic means (e.g. online), including satellite meeting locations. The old Articles had no such provisions. Note that fully virtual-only meetings are explicitly **not** permitted — there must always be a physical location.

**4. Board can postpone general meetings (Article 50)**

A new power allowing the board to postpone a general meeting after notice has been sent, if it considers it "impracticable or unreasonable." This gives the board significant control over meeting timing.

**5. Chair loses casting vote (Article 64.5)**

Under the old Articles, the chair had a casting vote in the event of a tie. The new Articles **remove** this — in a tied vote, the resolution simply fails.

**6. Director removal now requires special resolution or ordinary resolution with special notice (Article 80)**

The old Articles allowed removal of a director by ordinary resolution with special notice. The new Articles add the option of a **special resolution** (requiring 75% approval) to remove a director. This makes it potentially harder to remove directors as it gives the board another procedural route.

**7. Director resignation by fellow directors (Article 81.1.3)**

A new provision allows all other directors, collectively, to request a director's resignation in writing. This is new — the old Articles had no such mechanism.

**8. Modern/updated drafting throughout**

The new Articles are a full modern rewrite using current Companies Act 2006 language, replacing the old hybrid 1985/2006 Act drafting. Much of the substance is carried over but in cleaner, clearer form.

The ones worth paying attention to as a shareholder (to follow)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for LordWM

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)