Member Info for mathsprof

No, indeed.

The amusing thing was that I read my broker's message immediately after posting that I had bothered to vote! Decent of them to tell me, though, that they had made an error.

Well I thought I had voted:

Message received this morning form Broker:

I regret to inform you, that unfortunately your proxy votes for the forthcoming Valirx AGM were not picked up by our corporate actions
team. As a result, your votes were incorrectly not submitted. I can only offer my most sincere apologies for this administrative error. We
can assure you that this will not happen again.

About a 10% turnout. The sleeping holders win. I'm glad I bothered to vote.

I was assuming they'd be able to publish a lot more detail after the regulators had approved.

If you remember they were a number of unanswered questions about the data and interpretation when they were first released. I'm hoping for clarification now - else I fear no-one will sign any deal.

hope it wasn't you then that just made two trades of 104211.

Here's the damage in the last 3 years. Notice the biggest influence on the SP has been YA.
The last no vote and rumpus lead to abandoning Bracknor and the infamous YA clns which went with the 6p PI involved placing. We might have been better to stick with Bracknor.

30p Sep 15 YA equity swap
12p Feb 16
9p etc Mar 16 Bracknor
6p Sep 16 YA CLNs start plus PI placing
2.5p Mar 17 (YA clns still trashing SP)
1p Sep 17 (YA clns still trashing SP)
1.25p Nov 17
4.25p Dec 17
2p May 18

Let the BOD raise funds in an unhindered manner to get the best value they can at the next occasion.

A no vote will only make fund raising harder. PIs don't have nearly enough cash to stump up the required amounts by an OO, rights issue or primary bid.

I think when one post is removed by admin, the whole thread goes with it. It least I've observed that in the past.

You can check how many posts have been removed by looking at your pie chart, so eg flipsome - posts 101 pie chart shows 74 = 27 gone.

But it could well be a normal lse glitch.

isas - I wondered what other companies did, so I looked at SAR which has a similar policy. However their headroom is only 50% of current shares in issue, I believe.
(Interesting to note that the dilutions at SAR have been much less unpleasant, even though they have also used YA in the recent past.)
So what you are saying makes some sense - but how to achieve this sort of outcome without voting no is probably impossible. Especially as Align have been neutered.

and after the June 16 debacle - we got the YA equity swap to replace Bracknor.

There's no real alternative to these placings and loan schemes. Some PIs were given the illusion of participating in the placing at 6p, but in reality we could all buy at sub-6p in the following months.

I agree with s_k about pre-emption rights.

A company of this size can only raise money by this type of method. If you don't like this you should never invest in this type of company in the first place. A company like VAL, by its very nature, will always be seeking to raise funds by placings etc.

The problem with VAL is that, compared to its peers, it gets a much worse deal in terms of dilution etc. This is probably because of their track record on multiple placings. So we are saddled, not with an incompetent BOD, but one who are seen by the money lenders as a bad investment or easy prey. The only way out for the BOD will be to release good news before the next begging sieve goes round.

But does it make any difference to them? Vote NO to cripple the company; vote YES to give us all a chance at some future profit. I don't think we have a real alternative.

WARNING: do not invest in companies like VAL if you are not happy with waiving your pre-emption rights.

How many were yours? I reckon there are about 20 posts missing all together.

My guess is that were worried about the possibility of it being voted out.

What's changed? 401 news is about to happen which will soften the blow of further dilution. We ought to get the news before we have to put our poxy(!) votes in.

Sorry Holden, this is completely wrong.

The purpose of the GM is to give them authority to issue up to 455m new shares without offering existing holders new shares on the same terms. This is what they have done on previous occasions - the doubling of number of shares is simply a normal (for them) request and bears no relation as to what may happen in the future.

The £454,953 is simply the nominal value of these new shares (do you know what that means?).

No need to worry really until the next RNS lands outlining the terms of any share issue. It may never arrive.

However the actual need for this authority may worry many, and I can see the logic in voting against.

Sorry - milestones payments are due to Tangent from Valirx, and the 55.5% (not 60%) is due to Suzy getting her 7.5% of Valiseek after the original 60:40 split between Valirx and Tangent.

I've dug a bit deeper and found out more. From 2014 RNS:

ValiRx Plc (AIM: VAL), the life science company with a focus on cancer diagnostics and therapeutics for personalised medicine, is pleased to announce that it has established ValiSeek Limited ("ValiSeek"), a risk-sharing joint venture ("JV") company with Tangent Reprofiling Limited ("Tangent"). ValiSeek has acquired a worldwide exclusive licence from Tangent to progress the drug VAL401 through its remaining preclinical development and towards Phase II trials for the treatment of lung cancer and other oncology indications.

Consideration
Pursuant to the JV agreement between ValiRx and Tangent and the patent licence agreement between Tangent and ValiSeek, ValiRx has acquired a 60% shareholding in ValiSeek for an initial consideration payable to Tangent of £110,000, comprising £50,000 to be satisfied in cash and £60,000 to be satisfied by the issue of 20,338,984 new ordinary shares in the Company ("Consideration Shares") at a price of 0.295p per share, being the closing mid-market price of ValiRx's ordinary shares on 7 April 2014. Deferred consideration, based on reaching pre-determined development milestones, may also be payable in due course.

So maybe this last sentence is the key: Deferred consideration, based on reaching pre-determined development milestones, may also be payable in due course. If 401 is about to progress to the next stage, Valirx needs to pay Valiseek!!! (even though we own 55.5% of it!) (I don't know why its not still 60%)

The agreement between valirx and tangent (JV) was the formation of valiseek, 55.5% owned by Valirx, 37% by Tangent, and 7.5% by S Dilly. My understanding is that Valiseek owns the IP. The agreement is with Tangent, since they were the original owners of the IP for VAL 401. The sentences before the one you quote reads:

This led to the spin-out of a2sp Limited to commercialise the proprietary Magic Tag technology developed as a direct result of Dr Dilly’s research. The Magic Tag technology was transferred to Tangent Reprofiling Limited (part of the SEEK group, www.seekacure.com). The lead candidate Val401. . .

So Val bought into Val401 in 2014, and owns 55.5% of Valiseek.

It's important to remember VAL is not responsible for raising funds for VAL401. My guess is that a possible JV agreement will not directly bring cash to VAL, but boost the SP. Money is therefore needed for 201 etc. - not immediately, but in the coming months. Did the BOD initially hope for a cash payment too?

There are 2 clauses. The first relates to rights issue, the second is otherwise.

Nothing is definitely proposed here. Another RNS needed for that. I suspect though there'll be other news before the vote.

The number of shares to be authorised might give a clue as to the purpose. Isn't the circular ready?

Not a rumour - I've still a copy of the presentation given in November detailing the timetable and costs etc.
This has now disappeared from the site I downloaded it from, though.

However - the plans may have been shelved, since p11 stated:

Pre-IPO raising finances
• Assumes fund raise in Q4 2017 or
early 2018
• Out-licensing opportunities will
continue to be sought and negotiated
to provide potential early exit or
ongoing corporate partnership
collaboration

and p12 had this:

IPO finances
• Assumes Pre-IPO successful in Q4
2017 or early 2018 followed by an IPO
by the end of 2018
• Clinical trial costs have been provided
in research proposal by external
clinical research organisation
• Assumes a clinical trial of 200
patients, with a completion date by
mid- to late-2021

The Q3 2018 date is quoted in the table on this page - but I suspect is now irrelevant.

or presumably the auction before it - SP back down now. Still not a bad sign.