Member Info for PepeLePewle

I'm not buying that. If the board simply wanted to deal with the need to address speculation, and do nothing more, then they would have acknowledged "talks". Instead, we have "advanced talks". Also, this development fits well with the other "evidence" we have: the departure of Sath; the introduction of a temporary CFO who is versed to some degree in the Nasdaq; Phil's clear reference to looking at Nasdaq at the recent Parliamentary Committee.

I would also point to the way that the RNS is structured. It refers to the advanced talks with Neuphoria, and in the same paragraph (the next line sentence in fact) refers to "concurrent" activity to ensure funding of phase 3.

I think there is too much "meat" here. I think, therefore, this is more likely than not to happen.

I also think it is extremely positive. The company could have simply played for time waiting for ever better trial results to bolster the share price/see is any specific "knock out" offers arrive. As far as I can see, that would be what a company lacking in direction and conviction would do. It hasn't done that. It has struck out with a clear and positive course of action - albeit, the particular timing of news release has been brought forward by an event outside of its control.

EE, the RNS refers to "advanced talks", and I'm not sure I would say this is just "attaching one name to talks". Phil H wouldn't have put out the RNS unless it was very much odds on to happen...I would be very surprised if it does not now happen.

(cont) Furthermore, I have absolutely no concerns that a deal has not been done with a big player. I have no doubt at all that offers were received, but I do not consider that any offer could in any way have provided an outcome for the company remotely comparable to the outcome we are likely to have now - and should get at some speed. Phil H knows that, and would have treated the offers received accordingly.

No share moves in a straight-line upwards for long, and there will be bumps. However, I have full confidence in the current direction of travel, and I've ploughed another £15K in this morning for good measure.

The discussion since the Friday RNS has been been really good. The chatboard's overall demeanour might perhaps be described as "conservative" and "curious", and that certainly would describe my approach.

I previously expressed the view Scancell was likely to go on to the Nasdaq. It isn't a done deal, but I would be extremely surprised if it doesn't now happen: for Neuphoria it is a "get out of jail" card, and for Scancell it represents an excellent opportunity to get on the Nasdaq at very low cost, and at high speed.

The key section from the RNS is the following:

"The potential reverse merger could facilitate a Nasdaq listing for Scancell, which the Company believes could increase its profile with US specialist investors. Concurrently, Scancell is in discussions regarding possible equity and debt financing to support a planned global Phase 3 registrational study for its lead asset, iSCIB1+."

There are two parts to this development: the reverse merger, and the fund-raise.

As far as the RM is concerned, I am confident that the process is as risk-free as any dynamic step taken by an early stage drug-developer can be. Neuphoria is a clean company: it has an (undisturbed) market cap of c$23m, and $19.4m of that is cash. In other words, the market values its prospects as <$4m (effectively nil). Any "loose ends" will be dealt with by due diligence, and the company only has 7/8 employees (the expensive CEO has already been put out to pasture, and we can probably re-deploy most if not all of the remainder, as this is a drug-development company after all). We are buying a straightforward, quick, pass into the Nasdaq.

There has been a misconception about how a reverse merger works. Neuphoria will buy Scancell (i.e. give us shareholders shares in Neuphoria). At that point, the board of Neuphoria is replaced by the board of Scancell, and the company will change its name to "Scancell" (the misconception may be because the RNS refers to Scancell "buying" Neuphoria - or similar terms -, but this is only the end-game. Technically, Neuphoria is buying us).

The second part is more interesting. The RNS says: "Concurrently, Scancell is in discussions regarding possible equity and debt financing to support a planned global Phase 3 registrational study for its lead asset, iSCIB1+".

There are miriad ways this can be done, but the point is that it is funding for Phase 3 (there isn't any mention of a partnership, and so this now has to be considered unlikely though not impossible).

I appreciate the long-term holders here wanted a "take out" of some description, but actually I think this represents the best of every world. The move to Nasdaq will be lightning quick (essentially, now the job of the corporate lawyers - Neuphoria do not have a strong hand to play with and will have to pretty much take Scancell's valuation of its own shares). That will unquestionably assist both with general liquidity, and with the process of raising funds for Phase 3. (cont)

This is a perfect illustration of the need to have attribution to AI at all stages in any conversation concerning Scancell.

Ciaskin correctly gave the attribution to AI for that section of his comments of his comments that is AI derived. It wouldn't have been much fun trying to unpick all this if he had not!

Attribution of AI is key if it is ever used IN ANY PART of a conversation on this site. You can't just wait for the "clunk" as it drops on the ground.

I'm afraid I don't understand why anyone thinks this would have any effect at all on the position of Scancell at the moment.

The announcement is full of general, rather vacuous, "aspirations" regarding alignment. The only concrete step announced appears to be the creation of two new "liaison" roles. It says specifically:

"Importantly, both agencies will maintain full regulatory independence, while enabling closer alignment and collaboration where it delivers clear public health benefit. Whilst becoming increasingly aligned, both the MHRA and FDA will continue to make independent regulatory decisions. "

To be brutally honest, the only positive thing this could appear to mean - looking at this story from the position of the poor old MHRA - is that the FDA gives the MHRA a kick up the backside, and explains in no uncertain terms that it needs to get its act together...The same could be said of the UK generally by the way.

If that is true, then what is nGRND actually getting?

The RNS said today: "FCM retains full ownership of the Kerrs Gold project and all underlying mineral title". If so, then nGRND is getting what exactly? The right to say they have tokens that have some intangible link to a potential gold-mine somewhere? If you offered me something like that, I would run a mile. Then again, there is one born every minute.

Anyway, if this is such a good idea, then why aren't the big gold miners doing it? Taken at face value, then nGRND would appear to be crackpots. Surely the more likely scenario is that nGRND ARE getting something in return for their filthy lucre. Given that, then I would be looking very hard at what exactly that is before sticking any money back in here.

I think C11 has a point. If a poster places an essay produced by AI, then they should start their post by explaining what they have done. Apart from anything else, if posters do that then what they are providing is clearly understandable.

There may be a separate point - hit on by some of the responses to C11 - that we could all be a bit less aggressive - but as I say C11 does, in my view have a point and it is not as though this is the first time that "AI etiquette" has been an issue, and so I can also understand C11's frustration.

This IS a very good chat-board. The best I've come across, but we can still between us keep the standards high. It's difficult given we are, in effect, "self-regulating", but can we agree that if AI is used then it is explained at the start that it is being used, and broadly how it is used?

I don't think the Nasdaq possibility is some form of "Plan B". True, Phil H was talking at the Parliamentary Committee as though the company was being "channelled" towards Nasdaq. But I read that as Phil underlining the dire situation with AIM funding (his points about AIM companies accessing British Bank funding were fair enough, but he's not stupid and knows that's just flying a kite on behalf of others- that was never going to be realistic for Scancell).

I think Scancell has simply outgrown AIM, and a fair few companies that do that move on to Nasdaq.

There also seems to be a prevailing view that our best option is to "do a deal now". Is that really the case? We aren't, in my view, going to get anything like full realisation of the value of Scancell if we get picked up by one of the big boys (the GSK takeover of the Chicago biopharma in the last few days was at >£10 billion, but it was at a 40% premium, and I can't recall too many takeovers where many multiples of the share prices was offered). No, I think the lessons of recent takeovers is that you grow yourself first. Then if you are taken over, it isn't for a relative pittance.

Of course, we could "shed a limb" to fund Iscib+ phase 3, but why do that when going on Nasdaq would unlock real value generally? We could be fully on Nasdaq in under 4 months (it can be done in 6 months, and I still reckon that Sath's departure 2 month ago signified intent on the part of the company - as an aside on that, I emailed the Ellison Institute on 2 June as follows: "Sath Nirmalananthan is currently showing as being a "Finance Director" at the Ellison Institute of Technology on his Linked-In profile. I would be grateful if you would confirm if this is correct". As yet, I've had no reply).

My view is that going on Nasdaq is probably the best natural development for the company at this stage.

The first time I posted on here, I said that I had invested in Scancell because I couldn't see any red flags, and it presented a very good investment thesis. That isn't saying it doesn't have risk - any share-holding has that. It means there isn't any stand-out problems... That remains the case.

I have shares in other companies that I will trade. Those companies are subject to very significant speculation, and that means that even if there are red-flags, I can look at the market cap, and say "that's a good price", knowing that I am unlikely to hold for long, and there is some "fat" if the proverbial stuff hits the fan. That isn't the case with Scancell. I bought about 12/18 months ago, and I haven't sold any yet. This is a relatively large cap share that is, in my view, a long-term hold. I would say to anyone who finds it frustrating holding Scancell - just look at other companies to trade in the meantime... There are plenty of opportunities to do that, whilst leaving your Scancell holding intact.

MBUski - so you "got a response from Phil that [the Modi update] would be in quarter 1"... Can I enquire whether you are having it away with Phil and this was pillow talk? The only other suggestion is that you are receiving market sensitive information from Phil L'Huillier that self-evidently can only ever be brought to the attention of the public via an RNS? The latter suggestion is absurd - so I will assume you are using this site as an indirect way to announce that you and Phil are "going steady"...We've had a lot of things on this site, and now even some romance.

I should clarify: I said that this [soon-ish Nasdaq listing] was the "optimistic" view. I didn't mean this should necessarily be to the exclusion of other funding options for phase 3 of the drug trial for Iscib1+. There is no reason, at all, why direct external investment/part sale couldn't take place simultaneously with a Nasdaq listing. I meant that a Nasdaq listing, done as soon as reasonably practicable, would in my view be "a good thing" for the company - both in terms of general funding, and value maximisation.

Hi Botski,

David Schilanksy - he of the direct Nasdaq listing experience - got his feet under the desk on 2 April this year. My view, as you probably know, is that a Nasdaq listing is now more likely than not and I would date the start of the process to list from that change. It's a big listing, if it happens, and will take many months yet, but I would say we could be already nearly two months into it.

I would caveat that: it is, of course, the optimistic view. Also, it makes the assumption that the MHRA approval is secured en route (and also that of the EMA). Surely, even the sclerotic MHRA can't take that much longer?!

Are the beer goggles that big as well?

Marcus, you've completely anticipated a point that has been troubling me for a little while now: how on earth can it be fair to allow some people who are terminally ill to take placebos when the people administering them know full well that in so doing they are denying a clear opportunity to begin recovery?

Thank you.

I think that's right Burble. I think that Sath's departure is significant in terms of the overall Scancell agenda.

I think Phil H was saying that investors in the US can't invest in AIM, and that is why they are looking at the Nasdaq - rather than that they must necessarily invest in the Nasdaq to get any investor interest/funding. This is, of course, all speculation. However, it may be that a Nasdaq listing is needed, but there are also some other parallel options for funding stage 3 of the Iscib1+ trial. I don't know about the time taken for a Nasdaq listing (hence why I made previous enquiries if anyone knew much about Verona Pharma, which did make the switch from AIM). But Scancell aren't hanging around - as shown by what happened to Sath.

Well, is that the cat now finally out of the bag?

In my first message on the Scancell chat board, I talked about the possible importance of Verona Pharma's journey from relative AIM minnow to $10 billion pound Nazdaq titan. In further posts, I have pondered on the (in my view considerable) significance of moving Seth "departing" the CFO role, and tied it in with the RNS announcing it that noted specifically his temporary replacement's experience in leading another company on to the Nasdaq.

Now, just today, we have had Phil L'Huillier say explicitly that he has US investors telling him how interested they are in what Scancell are achieving, but being unable - for whatever reason - to invest in the AIM. He then, crucially, said that Scancell must now consider a move to the Nasdaq.

I think this makes complete sense. The liquidity in funding on the Nasdaq is vastly greater than what could be achieved in this country (again, the lesson from Verona Pharma, whilst being COPD drug development rather than cancer, is surely salutary). Phil L'Huillier is publicly ruing this situation, as it is forcing the company to head to America, but he is now also saying publicly not just that the company is considering this step, but that the pull is pretty much irresistible.

With regard to realising the full extent of this companies drug-development potential, and also it's value, a placing on Nasdaq is the next logical move. In my view, the company has too many moving parts to be capable of straightforward valuation meaning an outright sale is less than likely (though always a possibility). It is also possible that a "Genmab" style deal could be done to hive off one or more of the four platforms in order to provide funding moving into phase 3 of Iscib1+, but that is not, I would say, the main deal. The main deal is a move to Nasdaq, with or without dilution.

The end result will, in my view, most likely be a startling valuation.

No, that is clearly not correct.

Phil L'Hullier finished speaking at 12:32, and the price was approximately 27.75p. By 13:26 it had reached an intra-day high above 19.25p. In other words, it was climbing steeply for an hour after the end of his evidence. If anything, the market was extremely taken with his speech.

If you are concerned about any intra-day movements - and I personally am not - then look no further than a degree of straightforward profit-taking following an extended good run. In any event, we are up at the end of the day by a significant amount.

Berry Head. That's an almost Proustian place-name to me...Our family spent a year in Brixham from 1979 to 1980, when I was 7 years old...Then it was back to reality (and a suburb near the Smoke)...Halcyon days!

There's been some discussion about what's at the heart of the rise in the SP. The chart since the start of the year shows rises following 3 key RNS's: the FDA approval, the removal (and I can't see any evidence that Sath wasn't pushed) of the CFO, and finally the Fast-Track designation in the US. In the context of a company that is producing very striking improvements on SOC in a large addressable market with IScib+, and that has a number of strings to it's bow, any one of these news items could, in my view, have started a significant rise.

There's also been some discussion about what the value of Scancell actually is. For me, what is particularly remarkable is that Scancell is not simply offering "a better drug". It has four platforms - Immunobody, Moditope, Glymab and Avidimab. Furthermore, all four offer the company striking prospects.

If, added to this, you have an excellent Board, a world-class Advisory Board, and the very clear signs of an imminent shift in gear in terms of funding AND a current income stream, then the solid move up from 10p a share isn't really even a surprise.

If I were a betting man - which I'm not - then my money would be on a partnering, probably involving Glymab (more properly, "Scancell BioDiscovery") AND a Nasdaq listing. I think the clear references to both types of funding in the Sath RNS, the decision to go with a new CFO - and have an interim with direct Nasdaq listing experience, and the nature of Scancell's cornucopia offering mean that the Nasdaq probably lends itself as the ideal arena for Scancell to arrive on the international stage.

Ask yourself this: if you were Phil L'Huillier trying to decide how to place a value on Scancell, you would face a big problem: there are a number of moving parts that are all - at the moment anyway - successful. In my view, the only realistic way to do it would be to let the market decide. That is: Go West my son... Go to the Nasdaq.