Member Info for oftinhope

I have not looked at the website for a while but after the update last week I had a look and was surprised to find it has been translated to American English. When did that happen? I left a comment along the lines of this is a British company and British English should be used for all publications in the UK. Does anyone else agree? or disagree? Or is it don't care?

My British company exported 90% of sales and all of the products and the literature were in BE. The Americans never complained. Astrazeneca's site is in BE. I have not looked beyond that yet.

If you don't like the PIK loan note, I didn't, then get your £5k while you can. The sp will not be going up and I am amazed there is still a market.

Only if your broker supports such a thing. Neither of mine will. So nowhere for the instruments to go. Meanwhile the takeover panel has forced some small changes which do not address the issues I have. Some shares have come good and some gone bad over the last 30 years but I have not seen anything like this. DBay has intervened in a couple of my holdings. Neither made any progress for me after their intervention. I should have sold out at the first sniff....

Under most takeover regulations—such as the UK’s Takeover Code or India’s SEBI Takeover Code—forcing shareholders to accept non-voting B shares in place of their existing voting shares would raise serious legal and governance concerns.

Here’s why:

🔍 Key Principles of the Takeover Code

- Equal Treatment: All shareholders must be treated fairly during a takeover. This includes offering the same terms to all holders of the same class of shares.

- Mandatory Offers: If an acquirer crosses certain thresholds (e.g. 30% voting rights in the UK), they must make a cash offer to all shareholders at the highest price paid in the last 12 months.

- Voluntary Acceptance: Shareholders must be given the choice to accept or reject the offer. Coercion—such as forcing conversion into non-voting shares—is not permitted under the Code.

🚫 Can a Shareholder Be Forced to Accept Non-Voting Shares?

- Not under the Takeover Code: The Code prohibits any action that would disenfranchise shareholders or reduce their rights without consent.

- Requires Shareholder Approval: Any restructuring that converts voting shares into non-voting ones typically requires approval via a special resolution (usually 75% majority).

- Could Trigger Regulatory Scrutiny: Such a move might be seen as an attempt to circumvent control thresholds or disenfranchise minority shareholders, which could attract regulatory penalties or intervention from the Takeover Panel.

🧠 Strategic Implications

If a bidder wants to offer non-voting B shares as part of consideration:

- They must disclose this clearly in the offer document.

- Shareholders must be free to choose whether to accept.

- The Takeover Panel may require that a cash alternative be offered to ensure fairness.

Would you like to explore how this plays out in a real-world case or dive into the mechanics of B shares and voting rights?

The PIK notes cannot be held in an ISA or SIPP because they are untradeable securities. It is not clear to me what would happen to them but total loss seems to be the most likely outcome.

James@theinvestment.company has put together a group of shareholders. If you email him he can send you the lengthy letter he sent to Anexo last week.

Circulating tumour cells do not express FAP, I was told in answer to a question in an Avacta session years ago. So, as the tumour reduces in size there is less FAP expressed. Consequently, there is less cleavage of AVA6000 and I wonder if the tumour shrinkage may be limited to some percentage of its original size in a balance of cleavage and tumour growth. In which case, absent any side-effects, could AVA600 become a lifetime treatment that might be preferable to surgery?

I was wondering whether anyone else was still hoping for a better offer.....

There have been a number of estimates of Nanoco’s receipt for a successful conclusion.
No forward royalty is a surprise. Samsung supplies screens to a number of TV makers. Would they be royalty-free as well?

Here are a couple of pointers:-

An estimate backed by some guesstimates. Reasonable or otherwise, one could put one’s own figures into the template.
https://www.specialsituationinvestments.com/2022/09/nano-patent-litigation-multibagger-upside/

Another view, with some examples of Samsung previous settlements.
https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/nanoco-wins-legal-battle-with-samsung-and-outcome-could-be-worth-a-mint-to-manchester-tech-firm

Either way, “lower end” expectation management feels more like 100 rather than 500.

Verification of licensee reports is more like detective work. The licensee data comes in and one needs to verify it against other sources in the public domain such as customs data in different territories, retailer sales data, etc. Understand the manufacturer volume capability. Check product serial numbers regularly.
It helps if the royalty is collected at more than one point in the supply chain, For example, the chip maker is licensed and should only sell to product manufacturers who are also licensed. If the chip maker volume is higher than the aggregate product manufacturer volume then someone is not being entirely honest. Go look at products in the shops to see whether they claim to use the licensed technology and then cross-reference.
Dolby Laboratories evolved a licensee management capability that was so good other licensors of related technologies effectively sub-contracted royalty collection to Dolby. That increased the data sources and the identification and elimination of “errors”.

Most helpful - thank you

The addition of "Mixtures of different clusters and aggregates of two or more clusters are not molecular cluster compounds" by S to the Nano defintions is concerning me. It is a sweeping statement that permits exclusion by the addition of other materials to the compound.

Not so sure... breaking the text up a bit:-

ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DKT. 84)

Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 84).

The Court, having considered the same and any responses thereto, is of the opinion the motion should be GRANTED.

The Court hereby construes the term “molecular cluster compound” for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,803,423 (“’423 patent”), 7,588,828 (“’828 patent”), 8,524,365 (“’365 patent”), 7,867,557 (“’557 patent”), to mean “clusters of three or more metal atoms and their associated ligands of sufficiently well-defined chemical structure such that all molecules of the cluster compound are identical to one another in that each has the same molecular formula, mass, and size. Mixtures of different clusters and aggregates of two or more clusters are not molecular cluster compounds.”

Any idea where the text of the Samsung motion might be found? And the claim construction morandum?

The court has reconsidered and comes up with the definition statement. If that statement was proposed by Samsung then I wonder what they have found. If it was taken from NANO documentation then that might be a better outcome.

GSK to acquire clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company Affinivax, Inc. GSK to pay $2.1 billion upfront and up to $1.2 billion in potential development milestones.
With technology exclusivity, it is remarkably similar to AVCT. Looks like this vaccine development still has several years to go. The 7 year old company has had around $400M invested thus far.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GSK/gsk-to-acquire-affinivax-inc/15475343

My preference would be for AVCT to grow and compete on its own merits but if a big pharma took a fancy there is not much one can do.

Dream on, y'all

I, too, have despaired at the presentations of AVCT news recently. I, too, am paying the price being 50% adrift. I hope that one or more of the senior management have the gumption to get a grip on the issues because the CEO is clearly struggling.

Not directly connected to the ups and downs on this board but this paper is worth a read. It attempts to quantify the effectiveness of lockdowns and other governments’ interventions upon mortality in the evolving Covid crisis in 2020. The most interesting observations are in the latter half of the paper so it is worth flogging through the first half to understand why they reach their conclusions.
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

An article in the FT on 19 Dec re LFT, free to read https://on.ft.com/3seFgcF
Has just 2 out of 262 comments with references to UK LFTs and the sorry state of this government. I guess not many FT readers on this board...

Thank you for your thoughts. The 13% drop to yesterday is rather more than its peers that I found in consumer leisure goods. So there must be something that concerns the "market" that I have not been able to find. G4M has a bit of a track record in big drops in SP. I have held increasing numbers of shares since their initial offering so the portfolio is rather sensitive. Wait and see, as usual!

Any ideas as to why the SP has dropped 140 since 30 September? No director sales, no RNS. Anticipation of weak sales over Christmas?

Very negative article in the FT re LFTs, headed

"UK to phase out free rapid Covid tests by spring, believes supplier
Innova chief would be ‘surprised’ if free lateral flow testing was available to individuals beyond early next year"

Not a credible source, but there you go. Odd since the article goes on to describe poor performance of LFT and the Innova/FDA history .

Look forward to the Avacta PR team response.

Thought this might show up here today. I was looking at it earlier. The “headline catching” statement is
“Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases (vaccinated people) were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”
I think they compared two median PCR Ct figures from the two studies converted to copies to come up with that number.
The study from June 2020 is at
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/10/2679/5851471
was about symptomatic and asymptomatic cases amongst random people caught up in their test program and viral load variation over time.
The newer study was of a group of vaccinated hospital workers in an air-conditioned, un-ventilated environment and guess what, their viral loads were higher. A gift for the anti-vaxers.

I agree the Avacta marketing and PR functions leave a lot to be desired. There is nothing on the website that shows or illustrates the product that is being shipped, quantifies the product shipped so far, output capacity, usage video etc. All trivial stuff to create and post. As for "...please contact your local Avacta distributor" leaving the reader with another search rather than a link to distributors, I despair. The technical stuff is great but the website needs to enable the prospective product buyer to place an order, now .