Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Maybe someone got into a lather over this trade, a friend has just pointed out to me :-)

24-Nov-20 10:32:51 24.90 401 Buy* 24.50 25.00 99.85

That's a good question, NewParkFarm. Without going into all the technicalities, it isn't as simple as paying the current MCap. I'm happy to be corrected, and others may wish to contribute,
but to my understanding, it would go as follows:

VAL is an AIM listed Company. In similar instances, there's been a major shareholder "buyout" to get a large percentage immediately, and then, when a threshold is reached (50%), the take-over company offers to buy the rest of the shares. The difficulty here is that; a: There are no major shareholders with a large enough percentage to get an immediate foothold with, and b: They'd likely have to pay 66p/share (12 month window SP high - "fair" test) to any remaining holders, which would equate to around 36M, give or take. Obviously a 3rd party could gradually buy more and more shares, but we'd see TR-1s, and a successive SP rise with the gradual "creep". A big Pharma TR-1 would send the SP soaring, again making it more difficult/expensive to get over that threshold, compounding their efforts to "do it on the sly"/as cheaply as possible. Obviously they could give VAL loads of cash upfront, in exchange for convertible shares down the line, and do it that way to get >50% in time (Redmile like to do this, for example), but that would require VAL to commit to a large dilution, and I just don't think they'd do this.

If, for some reason, they managed to get hold of the majority of the shares, by which time the SP could be well into three figures, after all of the above, then the only way they could get the company into full private, would be to obtain over 90% of the shares and, under the Companies Act 2006, issue a Section 979 (squeeze out). I know that a small handful of shareholders in VAL (accounting for >10%) could stop this; unless of course, it is deemed that any remaining offers are acceptable.

So, in summary, on paper, it looks cheap, but trying to actually buy it would likely be much more expensive. Hope that helps.

Hi Teamhanz; I'll defer from speculating to unduly raise hopes/undermine the BOD strategy if you don't mind, but I'll tell you my opinion if/when it arises. I mean, it is, by all other measures, already clinic-ready, so it's worth either no more than it is now, as a Valirx clinical candidate (if declined), or it's worth more than the current MCap (if accepted). That simple, really. It's a two-way street. Having the 3rd party undertake more tests may decrease the perceived "potency" of the preclinical findings, and hence the desire to insource, or could clarify or indeed increase the perceived "potency", hence increasing the desire to buy/co-develop. The likely partners that I'm aware of won't have an issue with financial resource if they think it is good, so it is worth them trialling it further. The unusual thing about VAL301 is that it appears not to affect reproductive cycling (very unusual for endometriosis); this is a very tempting prospect. The only issue I ever have with these contracts is if they have a "poo or get off the potty" clause. I hope this one does, because the patents are time-dependent, and VAL could be potentially looking to partner a clinical trial, or further preclinical testing, elsewhere if this is a no-goer. We already know it is likely to be very-well tolerated, so the trial should, in theory, be much more straightforward than VAL201.

Well, I'm not sure about a blank cheque RB, but a 12-15M Market Cap is about right for a company of this make-up, with it's new preclinical strategy, management team, AIM listing, corporate structure, and maybe with BC201, but without 201/301/401 (imo). So, for me, there's not much of a downside really - i.e. very little to dip on. It's not like we've sailed to 60p per share on hot air and anticipation alone, or on a COVID "maybe". We also know that 201 "works", so I agree with A1b2c3; I'm not sure, bar a potential 2p rise, why anyone would want to sell at these prices; too much to gain, and I don't see much to lose at present. All in my opinion, of course.

Thanks, but just well schooled by the likes of RB, Bankfool and Iceman, with some good insight from a fellow investor.

Basically, if you topped up every time RB posts, I think you'd be in profit by my reckoning.

Yep - twice as many market maker shares available at the highest bid price, as compared to the lowest market maker offer price (2:1). There's been a bit of a stand-off, but it's piling up on the left, as they say, and the pressure has continued to build, so it's got to break I reckon.

Fab posts guys. I don't have a cat though, Jenny. I do have a German Shepherd however, so it's getting a bit teethy trying too get him in a box :-)

Thanks Jenny/Tommy.

As the drug has been given to many "subtypes" of tumor, then it could be that further data analysis may show that it is actually more effective in certain types, within less of a "mixed bag"; let's see. I don't think even Suzy has the breakdown yet, so no one else will be privy - hence the anticipated wait. And regarding "toxicity"; in oncology, if something works, rarely will you see this list of virtually homeopathic "side-effects".

I think that there will already be interested parties; there has to be. I think they will want to see some concrete evidence in e.g. castrate-insensitive response, and the data is too thin to show that on the current headline. It is an injectable formulation, but looks to have a far superior safety profile than many of the (and often different class of) test articles in this area, some of which are orally administered. There's a lot of competition in some of the other classes, but not so much here. I'm sure that the VAL301 tie-up group are being kept informed too. If I were doing the due diligence, I'd also want to see the full breakdown to be fair. Then they'll weight up the results to date, cost and time of a Phase 2b/3, and commercial opportunity (inclusive of patent times/patent areas already lodged). If they're smart, they'll try and scope it out for mammary, ovary, and endometrial opportunities too, even tying that up as part of the extended trials; but Suzy is all over that, so they won't be able to pull a fast one there. :-) :-) :-)

I think we are experiencing the effects of a compounded low free-float. Seems to be a stand-off alright. Loads of LTH's, and they just won't sell at anything remotely near this price. And buyers who just want to get in at 20p, but won't risk going much higher (for the time being). As RB says, someone will bite, changing the dynamic.

I do think that punters have now realised that we aren't a COVID outfit. I think that BC201 was never very likely to make an impact here, and now it's shown that being one of few not to be singing form the rooftops, getting grants etc, for the most tenuous of test article-related links, is now buffering us from the "fall-out". I see AZ making more progress, and watch for the Janssen one - that one is incredibly thoroughly tested, and will undoubtedly give yet more scope/coverage.

That being said, I still want to see BC201 put into some models of sepsis. I know it's been thought of, and is there, and I do keep banging on about it, but this is a crucial area of poorly-met medical need and there's loads of pathogens that can cause it. It's a real potential dark-horse here, and it has a chap to drive it who really knows his stuff. So, I hope and expect it to continue its progression; and VAL do love a good re-position :-)

A really nice weekend selection of positive, but not ramping, posts, and there's nothing wrong with that :-) Personally, I quite like to read critical posts, but I mean, common, at least critique the compounds, or the business; don't just put "it's rubbish" or "a lifestyle company", which is about as far from the mark as you can get. This company must have the lowest wages and overheads on the AIM!
Like everyone else, I'm eagerly awaiting the VAL201 readout. Bear in mind that some of the PCWG2-adherent trials have moved away from terms like "partial" and "complete" responses, so we really just have the headline of either a patient "responding", or being a "non-responder" (i.e. the former having no evidence of significant increased primary/metastatic growth, PSA etc, by the time that the trial was concluded for them). Obviously a number did respond, and this would've been over a fairly decent time-period, so this is great.
I'm genuinely unsure how the upcoming RNS will play out. For me, the wording will obviously be paramount. The incredibly minor side effects have already been listed, so hopefully a one liner over the excellent potential safety profile, and the fact that increased doses remain open for extended testing will abrogate anyone erroneously de-ramping on the back of "look at those side-effects" or "the MTD wasn't reached, so the study didn't achieve it's objectives" rubbish.
I'm not sure how the team will address the efficacy, in terms of the further breakdown. For example, did any metastatic castrate-resistant patients respond? (with those "side-effects", in this really poorly-served patient population; this would be the most significant breakthrough for me); any significant trends in PSA that declined in certain patient cohorts? It's a lot of information to get into a relatively short RNS. This study is essentially a study in different types of tumor (this is both good and bad, as I think I mentioned before, and will increase the complexity by which any "bite-sized" information can be disseminated).
The full results look as though they will be published in a Journal, or presented, and hopefully we'll get a series of interviews with the BOD straight on the back of the RNS, to clarify any points, before the usual suspects arrive to stir. If they are very promising, then they shouldn't hold back in my opinion; no one else seems to with their RNS's/immediate interviews.
However, whilst the full results are most welcome for us shareholders, don't be too disappointed if the SP doesn't change significantly. I wonder if the only thing to do this, at this stage, will be news of a tie-up. And remember, when we get to see the results in full, so do any interested parties, and, from what I can see from previous releases, there are some interested parties. They may already be under NDA, to get the raw data, as soon as it lands - who knows. But if this thing has potential in these patients, time to get on I think. Have a good week all.

What an interesting trading pattern. I look forward to Bankfool's and Iceman's technical analyses on that :-)

The expected massive sell-off for treatment companies, rather than vaccination outfits, has arrived, but I still think that VAL is buffered here. We've made very little song-and-dance over BC201 (I still think there's more utility for sepsis here), so any negative impact was purely for re-investment opportunities into the major markets, and from a limited number of "investors" who hedged with any slight mention of COVID on the balance sheet. I think that most stocks, not heavily leveraged into COVID, will pick up tomorrow. The outcome means that VAL is getting more and more concentrated into fewer hands with the LTH's. This will accentuate the limited stock fluidity for more rollercoastering, no doubt, but it should firm up the SP baseline.

Yes, I did Nick, although the 4% threshold was breached pre-exercise of remaining warrants, so you won't see a TR-1. To be honest, I had it in mind that we could therefore prevent some unscrupulous rascal from undertaking a mickey-taking Section 979 approach (albeit they'd probably have to cough up 60p/share). ;-)

I've worked in this industry for nearly 20 years and I know all the various types of big and small pharma characters.

She means what she says Mazik.

Yep me too pal. Holding 4.6%, and I won't be selling before or soon after 201 full results, just so you know. MCap is worth having the CEO and her posse in alone in my humble opinion.

To be fair to Sareum, I would say that 100m is fair, if not somewhat undervalued at this stage; they have an in-house kinase screening capability, from what I can gather, and a number of TAs with decent potential. I'm not a Sareum shareholder for the record.

VAL don't have in-house chemistry. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially in this day, as there is quite a dearth of "virtual" biotechs who aren't solely focused on their own in-house capability, so it does allow them to seek out the "right" TAs with flexibility and mitigated risk, which does rely on business acumen and personal skills (which Suzy et al definitely have); hence why I am really keen to see if anything is brewing in that space. A real pivot point for me.

Financially, it has been extremely lucrative to partner or sell at an earlier stage than historically, and Suzy could become the next "drug hunter" - she certainly has published specifically well in this area.

I digress; as MrN says, it does all make VAL look cheap, and obviously I agree with that. I think it's balanced to say that this company has one TA in particular that is sitting in a space of modest, or huge, potential. It is hamstrung in that the budget is limited to do internal reformulation and reposition work, hence the collaborations. If it were big pharma, I suspect we'd have about three or four Phase 2bs on the go now with it in various guises. The question will be how visible it currently is. Obviously the Japanese company see potential, as do many of us. This is where the full data for 201 is key, and how this is disseminated when it arrives. If it were me, I'd show the Japanese collaborator first; they've already got the necessary NDA etc in place, and they were proactive in getting hold of 301.

Like a house sale, I know enough to know that the BOD will play with a very straight bat. I'd be in the "there's another cash buyer coming up the drive in 5 minutes, so be quick and don't miss the boat" camp, but that's why I'm a shareholder and not serving on any AIM boards :-)

Looking at what has happened at Sareum this morning, I prefer the Mary Celeste approach; i.e. no news, until there's news. Gets us somewhat off the speculative radar.

Yes - being looked at by the Japanese Sponsor at the mo. You can modify peptides to allow oral availability. If this can be done, if; then that would potentially be extremely significant for other less serious illnesses. I think that VAL want to see what they can do first before hand-back (if there is a hand-back), and I asked Suzy if she'd address this in her QandA.