Member Info for Michaelhighbar

Without wishing to underestimate the importance of share purchases by directors, or employees even, the main concern here is that investors who are used to looking at companies like Hemo haven't been taking the plunge. After all they can understand better the pros and cons of its technology than a a retail, general investor.

Of course, if you asked the company they might say they (institutional investors, funds, activist investors etc) would come in once Hemo had the green light for the clinical trials ...OK but other companies in the same sector have investors right from the first round or long before clinical trials.

Just a thought and until the company comes out with a positive story based on facts, Hemo is at best a "Hold".

It seems that JOG have aimed at securing the development of the GBA. Now that this is done they can look forward at selling a further interest at a significantly better price than the approx. US$1.4-US$2.6 which has been mentioned by Orcadian Energy on Twitter.

They have been right in doing so, in my view: it is better to be realistic and get a deal done, try to ensure oil will flow and at the same time maintain a serious stake (50%) for the upside which could come at any time. Now they won't be under pressure for the 50% so the deal should be higher on a per $ basis and ... JOG can even take advantage of the volatility in the price of oil! So in a way it is similar to having a financial option.

Let's not forget that other companies have gone bankrupt (e.g. Xcite Energy) aiming for the sky but failing dismally to get a deal done.

Haven't been following JOG closely so the above is only a big picture perspective and a first reaction.

We ve had confirmation to that extent from administrator in response to email below sent earlier today:

" ... Following the lapse of the deadline for the court to approve 4D's exit from the administration regime as one of the conditions for the Subscription Agreement to be effective, can you please clarify the following:



(i) the expected timing of a public communications to explain to shareholders what steps are being taken to rectify the current situation arising as a result thereof;

(ii) the precise impact on the company coming back to the market (relisting);

(iii) will a new application to court be necessary?

(iv) whether the issue of extending the deadline of 14th Feb 2023 has been discussed at all or whether it is still a possibility;

(v) last not least: the reasons that the deadline has lapsed. Is it related to any action not promptly taken by any of the parties?

Or are they related solely to court delays? In the latter case why hasn't a simple extension of the deadline been agreed.

Finally, would representatives from the relevant parties involved, directors of 4D but also from the administrator teams have the courtesy (if the statutory obligation doesn't apply in this case) to explain the reasons that the shareholders have not been kept informed of the progress vis-a-vis the looming deadline?

It is regrettable that one has to ask for such information instead of it being communicated publicly: ..."

We seem to have:

- most importantly, further validation of ImmunoBody and AvidiMab technologies

- satisfactory evidence for the effectiveness of the covidity vaccine across variants and despite the difficulties in initial COVIDITY Phase 1 study in that a number of the 22 recruited had already become infected. As it has been pointed out now further large scale studies are required.

- results mean that Scancell can now very credibly seek a partner to continue trials and in-time begin commercialisation efforts.

It's a wise decision not to take the covid vaccine forward in-house and to look proactively for a partner. The reason cited is the crowded covid vaccine space which is a valid one. As a sideline, it does demonstrate that delays mean that even if you have a novel technology others will catch up so timeliness is important in a business and clearly in the case of a biotech whose technologies can impact on people's lives.

In that respect, Scancell seems to have upped significantly its game compared to the 2010-20 decade and in my view the presence of institutional investors has helped greatly. It's a positive development in the Scancell's evolution.

Despite the complexities in interpreting the results given that mof the trial participants

Yes Hemo should some heavyweight pharma investors. But where are they? Why are the II investors - general, sector specialist or even speculative funds - who are not strangers to the the biotech pharma sector not here yet? It's not as if there hasn't been enough publicity around the stock during covid times and very recently.

Sometimes it is a question of herd mentality but most of the times there is a reason that keeps them away. Perhaps they could be waiting for the next milestone.

Robins
Yes, undoubtedly, BoD have managed to destroy a lot value in the business. However, the high risks of having a high percentage of one's investment in one or two shares are well known. So will go back to my policy of having a relatively small, carefully selected diversified portfolio.

In any case, we are where we are and as you say it's always uplifting and encouraging to have news from the clinical front.

I am unlikely to stay as investor for the medium unless we get new directors / management or, at least a new CEO! But new management has to come with the right credentials in terms of running a successful biotech business.

Despite the very unfortunate cease in patient recruitment, it s proved fortuitous that enough patients had enrolled in MRx0518 and Keytruda trial prior to admin. That's in the RCC cohort.
Five out of twenty (even, -conservatively- five out of 30 had recruitment continued) is a good enough result to justify the following reaction as target was one in ten(!):
"While the safety and tolerability of MRx0518 lends itself to multiple combinations and indications, the data we have generated in RCC suggests that this provides our most viable route to market."
I don't think we have had anyone in 4D, let alone the CSO, starting to talk about route to market before. Have we?

A reminder that RCC is one of the main applications of Keytruda, MSD s biggest drug by revenue.

Given that the clinical side produces such results, let's hope we will see new CEO that has the credentials to organise the company better and move forward with the business side of things (financing, investors, commercialisation)

Scancell seems to continue to step up efforts, staying focussed and going in the right direction. The following two extracts say it all:

"Jean-Michel will seek to drive Scancell's strategy for clinical progress and commercial development of its novel immunotherapy vaccine and antibody platforms."

"Jean-Michel was Vice President for North America Oncology at Eli Lilly, with responsibility for commercialisation of the company's oncology portfolio. "

A big mistake by management not to offer the chance to shareholders to take part in the placement. More funds could have been raised and above 3p. And there was no urgency so additional complexity or delays is not an excuse.

Instead, information re placement has, clearly, leaked to the annoyance of most company s supporters, no doubt.

I believe the SP will bounce relatively soon assuming no obstacle to clinical trials and that CBR news to-date has the underlying substance to justify optimism implied and created.

The biggest scepticism I have is the lack of IIs and what it might mean re CEO s credibility. The company is early stage but there are plenty of early stage or pre listing IIs eg VCs or funds especially in the US that could have invested already in the business. But, let's look out for a TR 1.

I remain with a moderate investment in HEMO as hoping for interesting developments on all clinical fronts.

Results of third run have landed sooner than most expected. Re-rating must be in the air. Looking forward to seeing impact on shareholder base in the near future as a result of recent, today's and hopefully near future news.

Ultimately, we are not in a position to judge how good the recent news is and without further information on the company as to what the single-CBR vs multitude of viruses (that have some common elements) discovery will mean practically in terms of next steps. We may see a reaction from one or more industry players e.g. in the form of a collaboration and/or from funds / major investors that may see an additional strong attribute of Hemo in that promising area for further development.

My guess is we are looking at a combination of both i.e. fireworks but also at a company that is about to climb one or two leagues having upped its game since sometime ago.

Also with the pipeline in immunotherapy or cell therapy categories drawing closer to clinical stage the company should be about to enter a different league anyhow. But there will be questions re funding sooner or later. It'd be good to know how scaleable (i.e. ability to be produced in bulk) the HEMO therapies in case of success. The nature of HEMO therapies means that scaleability could be an issue.

But, even for a relatively early stage company, with therapies at preclinical stage £40m does look (very) low especially in light of the potential significance of its technology, programmes and its R&D.

That's at first sight (not very familiar with the company) and pending more information that will hopefully land soon.

Hopeless1
A good question and have been puzzled by this for some time. I think the answer lies in the demand for buys or sells rather than the transactions themselves which, as you say, they would be matched. Unless, of course, the market makers decide to take a position in the stock or get rid of stock they already hold.

If the demand for buys is higher than the demand for sells then the MMs would increase the price to entice more sellers and perhaps some putative buyers would be discouraged from buying at a higher price. So the market finds a balance!

But again MMs may have their own objective and wish to buy additional stock themselves and trade it as they see fit. Or they may want to drive a price towards the issue levels of an upcoming placement. Or there could be a big buyer or seller behind the scenes.

There could also be games at play (e.g. orchestrating a rise or a fall) but we can't know that.

No significant shareholders apart from directors!
https://hemogenyx.com/investors/shareholder-information/

It will be very interesting to see whether the exciting development announced by the company re single CBR will be followed by the emergence of important II investors in the company, be they corporates or funds, in the next few days or weeks. Let's hope it will as there will be a number of benefits for Hemo - not least validation of the company's R&D efforts.

If not, it may put into question the potential to turn the claimed discovery into a path for commercialisation.

When it was announced that the company had gone into admin last June, I posted to say that administration could lead us to a better place than the 16p or so when trading was suspended.

What was I hoping for? Going by the company's RNSs prior to administration and the collaborations with big names, I was hoping that having Interpath, an experienced player in restructuring and value recovery, and by putting the 4D data and the 4D IP out in the market, would ensure that 4D would attract suitors, investors and/or lenders. I was less concerned about the type of deal: the important thing would be to have a number of sector players or funds interested in the company and then the right type of deal would emerge. Thus, the mistakes and a certain degree of incompetence demonstrated by the Board and the CEO in particular, in the last couple of years, could have been corrected. Management's incompetence was demonstrated in a number of ways:
- the failure to pay enough attention to the Oxford Finance loan terms they signed!
- the disastrous financial strategy i.e. not raising sufficient funds when they had the chance.
- the unjustified big pay rises in 2021.
- the failure to attract value-adding institutional investors.
- last not least, the way that they handled retail investors (the only ones still supporting the company) in the last stages before suspension of shares. For example none of the questions that I sent at the time were addressed.

However, hopes were vanished: we are stuck with a hedge fund (as opposed to proper institutional investors) and probably with the same management! It is also quite disappointing that after Interpath approached 50 entities in the sector that could have played a role in the future of 4D, we are pretty much where we were except that we now have significant dilution.

Nonetheless, let's look forward though and there are grounds to allow room for cautious optimism. We can pin our hopes on the possibility that news are to emerge soon from the clinical trials. That would be the only catalyst with realistic chances of materialising - the RNS on 10th Nov 22 re oncology is quite encouraging re MRx0518. On the other hand, IBS is unlikely to prove of much value to shareholders. Otherwise, the risk is that the company going into a spiral of further dilutions. Let's see and if only the company had been bothered to give us a proper update on the science front during the administration period!

May still invest in 4d shares in the range 6-8p in the home of making a short-term trade and if the SP climbt o a 2-4x multiple I will sell a major chunk of my holding. There are other and better games in town and DIVERSIFICATION should be a major investment requirement going forward.

For a hedge fund to invest in a healthcare company they must be hoping for, if not expecting, very high returns i.e. a multiple of their capital at risk. So I'm tempted to think that they have good grounds to be looking forward to main news in the short term e.g in 2023 that will send the SP from 6p to who knows what double digit levels. They have also the means of leveraging further their returns through warrants. Will they take a seat on the Board? Probably yes but the question is whether they care / are in a position to add value to the business in a way that some institutional investors do e.g. in the case of AIM-listed SCLP where the presence of knowledgeable IIs seem to have given a big impetus if not transformed the business.

However, the fact that MSD (Merck), Seres or other parties that must have looked at 4D in closer detail recently and haven't ended up investing in 4D (for whatever reason) should tells us that there still serious risk in the business. Or ... and this is just speculation, could it be that the hedge fund, as lenders / putative lenders, were in a more pivotal position and, knowing the value in the business, they managed to elbow out potential strategic investors (minority investors or buyout candidates) from the sector?If that was the case, the lenders/putative lenders would have had cooperation from the directors whose chances to retain a role in 4D was / is to cooperate closely with the people who can pull the strings: the lenders who drove the company into admin at first place.

That's because any new party on the scene e.g. a pharma company OR a value-adding institutional investor (with a general focus or specialising in healthcare) would be very unlikely to want the to-date directors continuing to run the business.

After all, the lenders are to land in a much better position now than they were at the time when they called the administrators vis-a-vis a company that has the same value!!

But ultimately agreed with what other investors are saying: the only rational option for retail shareholders is to vote Yes given that the alternative is liquidation. And we hope for the best scenario to materialise.

Almost forgot to wish investors a healthy, happy and prosperous 2023 ...irrespective of what happens to 4d.

Have a nice one this evening!

JR thank you for your note which prompted me to post sooner than I would!

First it is certainly good news that the company is coming back. I'm also pleased and encouraged that the company has kept on making progress on the clinical front although administration has, probably, slowed the process down significantly.

But, I think positives stop there: we haven't heard anything about a new CEO. I'd be disappointed if gaffe prone and (grossly?) negligent Duncan Peyton was going to carry on being in charge. DP may have driven some important initiatives (e.g. with MSD) but we need a CEO who's much more proactive, competent and hard working and is able to draw II investors who can add help value.

It is also disappointing that after having approached 50 or so companies in the sector, as per update issued in September if I recall well, no noteworthy sector player has taken a stake in the business - let alone not opted for a buyout at a price anywhere near we thought where the company value was e.g. US$150m+ The reasons given in the RNS about the lack of offers because of timing or incompatibility with putative buyers' strategy are, in my view, questionable at best.

So we have a "rescuer" in the shape of ... a hedge fund that has named its terms http://www.armisticecapital.com/about
Of course it is better than nothing but one can't help thinking that if CEO and the Board had done their job probably we could have easily avoided the serious dilution we are facing now.

Now, at a share price of 6p we should be looking at a a floor: in the first few months, funding won't be a pressing issue and hopefully investors (retail at least) may well flock to the stock with some help from a milestone-related newsflow (if that happens). Then we could look at a multiple of the post-administration price. But that time window won't last long and 4D will have to make most of it if we are to expect a RedX encore (nb. in the case of RedX a new CEO landed).

In case of 4D if management and CEO in particular don't full advantage of such brief period - where the market won't be worried about funding and runway- and there are no major milestones on the clinical or business front then 4D will become officially a penny share.

The Board have not only mismanaged the business since the Oxford Financing news but also the way they handled investor communications was dismal i.e. in the 12-18 months leading up to administration. So they'd better up their game big time if they carry on.

Given the above early thoughts, I will play it by ear and look out for any information that comes our way. I think there's bound to be. But my current plan is to try and sell half of my holding at a suitable opportunity (e.g. if we were to hit 20-25p) and leave the rest in case a really good scenario materialises. If Peyton is the CEO then I'd probably sell the majority of my holding at the earliest opportunity. Let's see what happens!

Seres Therapeutics market cap has climbed from a low of US$300M to > USD $850m in a few months! Seres is one of the leaders - if not the leader - in LBPs, the very same sub-sector of the Pharma/Biotech as 4D.

Shortly before 4D went into administration and as increasing signs of 4D incompetent management were starting to surface, I'd argued that a buyout or a merger with Seres (or a firm like it though there aren't that many of decent size in LBP) would be an excellent way to provide value for all stakeholders.

Seres might not have sufficient cash, but 4D investors could receive shares in the enlarged company.

First, I was a little encouraged by the fact that administrators had approached 50 companies in the sector. I can only think that Seres were on the top of the list. 4D's pipeline should be nicely complementary to the portfolio of Seres (or that of other competitors) given its unusual single-strain approach and the variety of illnesses targeted.

Every now and then, I'm checking the share price of Seres as a barometer for the popularity and extent of recovery of the LBP sub-sector. Almost every time I check the share price is significantly higher. That could mean that 4D assets are becoming more and more affordable from Seres's perspective and that the value of the 4d assets themselves must also be getting part of the benefit from an increase in affordability.

In any case, 4d's assets must have gained some significant value since June especially in the light of the recent RNS. However for that to be realised there has to have been some parallel expressions of interest.

Now, the basis of a (possible) deal be it:
- refinancing of debt with 4D coming back into life from coma or
- an M&A deal
- or a partial sale of assets to pay off debt and with 4D coming back
should be getting stronger and the chances that the shareholders will find it somewhat satisfactory must be getting better.

If the company was to come back I'd trust that Duncan Peyton and the CFO would have no role in a re-emerged 4D or, in the case of Duncan, certainly not the same role as before.

Ah just saw it. Presumably it is .com ?

Crl123
What is your email pls?