Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Nelsonthedog; spot on.

Are you really going to issue a heads-up presser about "Going for Growth", when your main TA is a dog, and you've canned most of the rest?

Glad to see some more long term thinking on the forum. Look at the evidence. The preclinical store cupboard has been virtually wiped clean for not meeting the new strategic criteria, which are very robust and, as far as can be in pharma, foolproof. BC101, VAL201 and VAL301, aside from the VAL401 reformulation, are essentially the same test article. There's a lot riding on this small decapeptide, which has a plethora of potential uses, in a range of male and female reproductive malignancies, to state reproductive oncology applications in isolation, not to mention neurological, bladder and skin potential. Without proven utility, you just don't blow the other cobwebs away so readily.

Tonight at 5pm, when I'm cracking open the Special Brew, would do it, because, you know, you definitely wouldn't want to be out of this, this weekend.

OK Grace; I'll put my money where my mouth is. It's the metastatic castration resistants that are getting my hopes up (with sympathetic respects to those poor patients). I just can't see any reason, by chance, in these, bar PSA secretion abnormalities (which just wouldn't happen at n>1 in that cohort), why the doubling time would drop if this wasn't efficacious. This is the target population most poorly served, and look at the chart, as is in the public domain. It's telling a story, albeit on an individual basis. Now, for me, what's a good result; a recapitulation of 4mg/kg at 5. What's a great result; all cohort patients sustaining an increased PSA doubling time of greater magnitude, or even a decrease in 1/3 (bear in mind, there are no combination therapies here). What's a result that makes one of these lads bear all at the local town hall and another upgrade from his Sekondas? PSA decreases in more than two patients, with evidence of stability. And if there's actual shrinkage in a resistant metastatic (if it's even been imaged), well I'm your uncle Bill.

Well, I do like a good mono-therapeutic dose-response, and so far I've seen one; in a market where others' are resorting to combi's to produce "phenomenal" results ;-)

Well they could do with something to beat AZD0530, so not a huge hurdle.

Today's shenanigans reminded me of the "Ambush" scene from "Last of the Mohicans", with Rightback, BaxtersSoup and, of course, Saint Rampez, in the boats, giving chase. Thankyou for such an entertaining day.

I agree re. herd, but, to be fair, we're now probably now at a MCap justified by the stage/opportunities afforded by VAL401, plus the tie-ups/preclinical strategy; VAL201 in for free.

It depends where target saturation is reached - assumed to be between 4mg and 8mg. If 8mg is still well-tolerated, with full target engagement, then this will be the key data. Don't forget that it's pretty ballsy to go straight in as a monotherapy, and not potentially mask the "genuine" effects by using a combination approach, which are much more likely to yield positive news (and which are generally now starting to form the current mainstay of treatment, away from the crueller chemotherapeutics). The purpose of these studies isn't primarily to assess efficacy, so the 4mg/kg data would've been enough, imo, to progress, either alone, or in combination. And if you look at others' results recently, it wouldn't be expected for every patient to respond, to still claim "phenomenal" results.

Not to be pedantic, but I think you were initially right; they repositioned inhaled IFNb from COPD, to COVID. So, one product, two indications. They have a couple of partly owned bits and bobs, at least I think so.

RedX is a slightly different kettle of fish. They have a pretty strong in-house medicinal chemistry outfit, with two significant preclinical tie ups with major pharmaceutical companies. That said, their actual prostate cancer drug is in a more crowded area that VAL201 (first in class; novel), will inevitably have more significant dose-limiting side-effects due to it's mode-of-action, and would likely be deployed in a different clinical setting. Plus the myriad other possibilities with VAL201... So although it could be argued that the preclinical pipeline is currently stronger at RedX, it could equally be argued that the RXC004 has more limited potential when compared to VAL201. But if you look at the MCap differential between the two, then this is probably as good a guide as any regarding the current "undervaluation" of VX. This isn't to mention VAL401.

Something that I haven't seen documented much on this board is the wider potential of VAL201 (beyond prostate cancer/endometriosis/COVID). If the peptide is even half-effective in androgen-SRC inhibition, then it is very likely to work in ovarian and breast cancers too, notably in oestrogen-+ve subtypes (or even if estrogen receptor expression has been lost, +/- androgen pathway activation). And that's just in cancer, not to mention a plethora of non neoplastic potential applications.

At this rate, the coffers are going to be overflowing. If decent, RedX will end up funding the RXC004 Phase 3 itself, and then it might be pounds per share. Either that, or a massive takeover.

Blimey. J. Moulton must be crying into his cornflakes - poor fella.

This to me is more significant than the AZ deal, for two reasons:
1. I was getting slightly perturbed by the lack of "IND ready" news regarding the Jazz Pan-Raf inhibitor program. I mean, how long does it take to generate a chunk and chuck it into a few PD assays and preclinical safety models? This, to me, as Pharmatrader has said, has reaffirmed that this program is progressing well, and I would expect an update sooner rather than later. Remember, this was a potentially HUGE cash deal, as with AZ (maybe up to 60% of that deal). I am now anticipating that it may well get to the IND ready stage (200,000,000 USD).
2. The most important point. I was also ever so slightly concerned that under all the historic turmoil, the previously excellent (and almost unrivalled in my opinion) Medicinal Chemistry personnel at RedX had been lost/moved on and that the Company, although doing well, was to extent relying on legacy candidates. Obviously not so.
Excellent news to my ears.

Having scoured the evidence of the last few days, it has to be said that no one was purposefully de-ramping or scaremongering with the HL and II letters. They were both legitimate, myself having received the HL "version" that omitted the Section 979 "threat". Having spoken to the Takeover Panel yesterday morning before the rapid "reverse ferret", if you look at my previous posts, they may be of at least some help, particularly to II customers who sold on the back of this, because they should be pretty solid, regarding the statutory situation. If it was Broker error, then you have legitimate complaint with financial implications. What I'd suggest is that you contact II and ask to see the actual correspondence from Redmile and/or RedX. It seems very poor that a "Sell-out" and "Buy-back" clause was so monumentally switched/ballsed-up in this way.

The itch that I'd personally like scratching is the letter RM/RX reference in yesterday's statement, sent in May, apparently to the brokers, referring to the share-holder right in asking Redmile to purchase any remaining shares. What I'd really want to get to the bottom of if I were an II customer, is why both HL and II sent out correspondence, roughly at comparable times, later in August, around three months after the letter. Did II/HL hold onto the letter until, coincidentally, sending it out at similar times, or did some "erroneous" reminder get sent in the last two weeks from RM/RX? If the latter, then this would constitute a serious breach of the law and would determine an immediate referral to the FCA.

In either case, if anyone has made substantial financial loss, then these two avenues could and, in my opinion, should be explored by individuals affected.

PS - If Redmile have been buying publicly-traded shares in the interim (i.e. "shaking the tree" and moping up), then whatever price they have paid in the interim - you can probably count that as significant for future recompense, over and above the Presland purchase at £25.

No problem - and I like beer; I can't guarantee complete water-tightness, but the revised Period during which Squeeze-Out and Sell-Out Rights may be Exercised (section 980(2) Companies Act) – the Directive provides (Articles 15.4 and 16.3) that squeeze-out and sell-out rights must be exercisable within a three month period following the time allowed for acceptance of the bid - was specifically "intended to prevent offerors in such circumstances continually extending the offer period", so it seems that the House of Lords may have it's uses after all :-) I think there's probably enough there to take on WG Partners LLP, should it be required, but until something formal is issued, I personally am sitting tight.

So, by my reckoning, someone; RedX, Redmile, or the brokers, have royally stuffed up. Not only does it seem that they cannot “extend” the original Mandatory Offer, they also apparently can not issue a Section 979, and, even if they could, they’d have to pay everyone 25.00 per share, thanks to Peter Presland. In fairness, RedX have not formally issued a statement, this is just based upon broker correspondence at present, but there we are…there’s simply too many holes in this.

My advice to all shareholders (based upon the CMS Guide to Mandatory Offers and Squeeze-out Clauses):

“The offer must remain open for acceptance for at least 21 days from the date the offer document is published. If the offer does not become unconditional as to acceptances, the bidder can, but is not obliged to, extend the offer for a further period”.

"Acceptances of the Recommended Mandatory Cash Offer must be received by 1.00 p.m. (London time) on 30 April 2020, being the first closing date of the Recommended Mandatory Cash Offer. As announced on 9 April 2020, Redmile owns Redx Shares representing more than 50 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of Redx in issue. The acceptance condition set out in the announcement of the Recommended Mandatory Cash Offer has therefore been satisfied and, accordingly, the Recommended Mandatory Cash Offer is now unconditional in all respects". (RedX, 9th April 2020)

So the offer was closed and a Section 979 can not be instigated based upon the “original” offer.

For II customers who appear to have received a Section 979, these are your rights:

“The bidder must serve a statutory notice on each target shareholder whose shares are being compulsorily acquired, informing them about the squeeze- out, how they can obtain the consideration due to them (which will be held on trust for them by the target), any opportunity to elect for a particular form of consideration, and their right to apply to court to object to the squeeze-out”.

“The mandatory offer must, in respect of each class of share capital involved, be in cash or be accompanied by a cash alternative at not less than the highest price paid by the bidder (or any person acting in concert) for any interest in shares of that class during the 12 months prior to the announcement of the offer”.

Let’s assume (generously) that the Hargreaves Lansdown brief constitutes a legal “new” offer:

“Certain persons are presumed to be persons acting in concert with other persons in the same category unless the contrary is established. These include: members of a group of companies and associated companies (20% or more ownership or control); and directors and their companies”.

30-Jun-20 Buy Peter Presland 25.00 GBX 118,849 238,84

“in the case of a bid by an offer (but not a scheme) for a Target listed on a regulated market, if the takeover documentation does not comply with certain contents requirements in the Code, the directors of the Bidder and the Target could be guilty of a criminal offence if they knew that the documentation did not comply (or were reckless as to whether it complied), with the requirements and failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it did comply (under section 953 of the Companies Act 2006)” .