Member Info for rhd1

Paternoster, i think the only bit of your question answered was to

...'the potential of a low-ball placing being dropped on us unexpectedly'

she told you why she could not do it without a GM so certainly would not be unexpected, as 21 days notice needed.

Out of interest if they did ask for shareholder approval for a placing, do you think that it would be refused by shareholders,and the company then potentially going into liquidation?

Not being negative just looking at the various options and views .

EGM, was that not how we got in this mess in the first place? 8 signatures and in my opinion at least one of them making a great deal of cash out of it.

Nobody disputes that GM had to go,but it was the clamour to get that great new person Suzy Dilly in place, without any due diligence to check if she was the best fit for the company.

Now people are recognising that she is a great scientist but not enough business experience to get the deal over the line.

For me, she now knows the company, but desperately needs to get someone in the team that can do the deals while she takes the science forward.

I would find it hard to change again, as we would always be rebuilding and that always costs money over the long Term.

Freddie, You been on the booze or are you always this rude?

Pm22, Are you on the right board??

Not going to go over the figures yet again, but even if he had voted against with his 8 mill odd, most of the BOD would have still been safe. We need to accept that the majority of shareholders supported most of the the Board by a very strong margin.

Metom,

I thought you had sold?

No need to RNS, for the reasons she gave you.

Sambar, nicely put about the votes, they all had massive support the only one even close to falling was Mr Dessler but even he had 15 mil for and 12 mill against. Suzy was approx 25 mill for and 3 mill against which is hardly a vote of no confidence or an ousting.

Based on what I heard I might even buy the ones Metom sells!

Patient 8,

You said 'Suzy's tenure as CEO has been marked by the complete ousting of her entire team' did I miss that event or was it just an opinion ?

Anyway, I don't suppose Suzy cares much about negative BB opinion now she has the support of the majority of shareholders, including the largest, the board confirmed and the strategy going forward, all agreed.

Personally, I think it might be a bit tricky for a time, with a dropping SP, but longer term, and with the new lab business model I think it will be a steady,stable future for those of us willing to stick with it.

Alwayswatching,

Good post and totally agree, lets hope that those shareholders now move on, particularly now that the majority voice has spoken on the way forward. Unfortunately, I am not confident they will as they do like their BB voice .

Metom and Fred, deep breath and more measured approach needed , you will have no anger left if no change to the BOD!!

Freddie, what is making your blood boil, Satu resigned in April from the uk company and is nothing to do with the Finnish one .

Only Adam knows what his business commitments are; whether he will have the time to give to Val or the inclination to become involved beyond being a major shareholder.

What I know is that on the 14th June he said

...'They’ve bought a business that had an equipment asset value of probably 3+ million; a bio bank with significant worth; and all the IP. For 170 grand. Credit where credit is due. This is an excellent bit of business.'

There have also been other very recent and positive comments from him about the company and what they are doing.

Might it be wise to reflect on the comments he has made as It might not be the best business decision to vote the ones off who got the deal and one assumes have the plan to get it up and running. In addition,many other posters were recently saying how good the lab business would be for the company, (admittedly some were rampant rampers though!)

Do we really want a complete change, particularly if Adam was not able or willing to accept a board position for whatever reason.

Sorry about the long post but not long till we know one way or the other.

Well said Porky9,

....'Look, I hope I’m proved wrong about THX but I just don’t see it. I would rather the drug go to a major biotech that can fund trials and give them it for free with a guarantee payment on a milestone if it proves to work.'

Good post Minnisage and totally agree about Stella. Sometimes a bit of straight talking is what is required.

The conversation on here is a Deja vu moment for those of us who were here and can remember Dr Dilly's appointment. In my mind at the time, shareholders voted her in without any due diligence at all and as they say, what goes round comes round. Personally I was against her appointment and voiced it on here, but I now think she was faced with an impossible task as they those legacy products were already lingering from previous management, albeit she has tried to move them forward.

Not sure she will survive the vote but for me, if she does, then I think she will be focussing on rebuilding Val into a new business model of lab work, perhaps a good prospect longer term, and if any of the agreements come in then they will be a bonus, but I am certainly not holding my breath on them.

I also think any new CEO would simply let the legacy products wither on the vine with the faint hope they come good . We would then have to go through more turmoil when they introduced new direction to the business.

With all of that in mind I will supporting her as I think she has/is slowly getting things on a even keel and I will be putting my shares in the bottom drawer for a few years and see how the lab business develops.

Good luck to all, not long to wait to see one way or the other.

Not sure I am following your train of thought here as Murphy canyon looks like it had been delisted from 14 April 2023.

MURPHY-CANYON-ACQUISITION-CORP-Notice-of-Delisting-or-Failure-to-Satisfy-a-Continued-Listing-Rule-

'In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(C), the Company will have 180 calendar days, or until October 9, 2023 (the "Compliance Date"), to regain compliance with the MVLS Rule. To regain compliance with the MVLS Rule, the MVLS for the Class A Common Stock must be at least $50 million for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days at any time during this 180-day period. If the Company regains compliance with the MVLS Rule, Nasdaq will provide the Company with written confirmation and will close the matter.

If the Company does not regain compliance with the MVLS Rule by the Compliance Date, Nasdaq will provide notice that the Class A Common Stock will be subject to delisting. In the event of such notification, the Nasdaq rules permit the Company an opportunity to appeal Nasdaq's determination. The Letter notes that the Company may be eligible to transfer the listing of its securities to the Nasdaq Capital Market (provided that it then satisfies the requirements for continued listing on that market). The Company is monitoring the MVLS of its Class A Common Stock and will consider options available to it to potentially achieve compliance.'

Wallcrawler,

Bit harsh on Val, although might turn out to be true, we just need to wait till next week!

Pm you said, amongst other things.....................'World class new compounds coming through for a quick evaluation in our lab. Each one is worth at least 10p moving into SPV and more overtime so huge potential'

Did I miss this news or is it simply your opinion that is what will happen? I do hope so but my view is that I am not sure many 'world class new compounds' will go through a newly started lab, without a decent reputation that it has built up with perhaps smaller contracts first.

Metom,

Ref the twitter comment you posted, what is your take on this? The comment and picture appears to me to be an update to the 2022 article about the link with Kings.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/drug-treatment-for-triple-negative-breast-cancer

Are you suggesting that they are giving 'a heads up' about some sort of progress with this ?