Member Info for sadoldgit

Jeff. I do know that commercial property rents are based on turnover. Normally the rent based on a percentage of the previous audited years accounts. This is on turnover and not profit. If a company had zero turnover in a financial year, is it right they should be charged rental when the previous years turnover was 750,000 for arguments sake? The owner is not obligated to do this I will add.
Many commercial property owners have reduced their rents considerably after discussions with tenants due to loss of turnover caused by the pandemic. It is easier to resolve by negotiation than by court action.

Regards

If they do file for for Chapter 11 in the US it will only cover them in the US. Outside of US Cine would have to take it on a country by country basis.
Yes Salem they have not filed for Chapter 11, thankyou for setting me right for that one. Jumping ahead of myself there. need read properly before I post. I OMMITTED BY MISTAKE THE WOULD 'SHOULD' between 'Now' and Cineworld.

Now Salem1973, do you have any better suggestions of options for Cineworld to progress?

They need time to recover from effects from Covid pandemic. It will take time and that is all they need. There are also many other factors to be taken into account regarding rental on commercial property, whereby the rental cost is based on turnover. This alone is a lengthy subject and depend what is written into the contract.

Regards

I think you miss my point AimMaster.
My point being that by filing for chapter 11 in the US it gives a company the opportunity to prove itself financially viable. It will have a period of time to submit a plan. once the plan has been submitted and agreed by the federal courts there can be no enforcement to pay debts by the creditor once a decision has been reached by the courts. That will also include compensatory payments. Now the plan will have to include a demonstrable means how it intends to pay any monies owned and over what period of time.

You can owe much money to creditors. A creditor can take you to court. The court will ask the defendant how much he can affordably pay. The court will decide how much and over what term you will make these payments. You are then committed to make these payments. A creditor can rant and rave as to how much they want but it is ultimately the Court that will decide.
However, after the agreement has been made it is in the best interest to meet these payments as if not the agreement has been breached. Interesting to note here the judge can also order that no interest is added to the amount of debt. You then have two options. To pay full outstanding amount in full or have properties seized.

Now Cineworld have applied for chapter 11. They have time to submit their plans, which will involve the companies position as it stands and how it proposes a way forward, hence intentions to the federal judge.
The details on the plan will be considered by the judge ( yes there will be creditors jumping up and down demanding more). The judge will grant what he considers to be a reasonable amount and time to repay.

So all I ask, is with probable near term liquidity issues caused by alleged lack of blockbusters and a court appeal against a circa 900 million dollar payment that is it not in the interests of Cineworld and its shareholders to pursue chapter 11?

Regards

Good afternoon AimMaster2018.

Regarding
'The real kicker is "In the event that Cineworld is unsuccessful on appeal the group would not have sufficient liquidity to pay the existing level of damages awarded. It is also noted that Cineplex is an unsecured creditor."

Do you not think that Cineworld have this avenue covered by filing for Chapter 11? If you do not think this to be the case then may I ask why?

Regards

Good afternoon WolfofWarks.
Regarding
'The real kicker is "In the event that Cineworld is unsuccessful on appeal the group would not have sufficient liquidity to pay the existing level of damages awarded. It is also noted that Cineplex is an unsecured creditor."

Do you not think that Cineworld have this avenue covered by filing for Chapter 11? If you do not think this to be the xase then may I ask why?

Regards

Apologies
Cine in my honest opinion but of course non factual, i will say are being very cute in playing for time, in addition they can achieve the removal of the threat of enforcement of compensatory financial payments against them. I missed the last sentence shown below.
In this respect any compensatory payments that have been awarded, become payable but at the same time to an agreed timescale by both parties.

These cases can run on for years

Regards

This chapter of the Bankruptcy Code generally provides for reorganization, usually involving a corporation or partnership. A chapter 11 debtor usually proposes a plan of reorganization to keep its business alive and pay creditors over time. People in business or individuals can also seek relief in chapter 11.
This is factual information!

The link is below but is just the basics but also factual information as opposed to media scaremongering tripe.
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics#:~:text=Chapter%2011%20-%20Bankruptcy%20Basics%20This%20chapter%20of,its%20business%20alive%20and%20pay%20creditors%20over%20time.

Note an excerpt from the above

'Because certain filing deadlines are different and extensions are more difficult to obtain, a small business case normally proceeds more quickly than other chapter 11 cases. In a small business case, only the debtor may file a plan during the first 180 days after the case is filed. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(e). This "exclusivity period" may be extended by the court, but only to 300 days, and only if the debtor demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the court will confirm a plan within a reasonable period of time. In a subchapter V small business case, only the debtor may file a plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1189. In other chapter 11 cases, however, the court may extend the exclusivity period "for cause" up to 18 months. Another example of the faster pace of small business and subchapter V cases is that the debtor may not need to file a separate disclosure statement if the court determines that adequate information is contained in the plan. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1125(f), 1181, 1187. In a traditional chapter 11 case, the debtor must file a separate disclosure statement. 11 U.S.C. § 1125.'

It effectively gives Cine up to 18 months recovery time to enable a plan to be put together ( as long as agreed by the court of course) . This does not however mean that it is 18 months to pay all outstanding debts.

Cine in my honest opinion but of course non factual, i will say are being very cute in playing for time, in addition they can achieve the removal of the threat of enforcement of compensatory financial payments against them.

Regards

After hours trade at 5.6p

A Jones, good afternoon.

A fact is a fact. However people use the word 'fact' in the belief it reinforces their opinion. It is the most inappropriate used word currently involved in conversation. Media use it all the time.

Most people have no idea of the Chapter 11 in the US of A. It allows for a company to sort its finances. The amount of debt is one thing but they also need take into account projected turnover which was achieved circa 4 billion in 2019. The pandemic has wreaked havoc.
Companies can and will pull through. I believe this is a company that will. My belief only and not a fact. But it is a fact that I believe that the company will pull through.

Scare tactics are given out by persons to suit their own agenda. Especially those with little to no posting history of factual information.

Regards and have a great weekend sir.

Neil 777.
'
'This will go to admin and will come out the other side but with share holders wiped out.

Is the above negative comment you posted, your opinion or a fact as stated in an RNS.

You could enlighten us all with the RNS you rely on to form the basis of your statement, but I doubt you will do so.

Regards

Good afternoon fearg.

By my reckoning Sareum are being clever. The patent is for SDC1802 as you well know, ie the manufacture of the compound is protected. ( Crystallisation of a compound)
To a certain extent SDC1801 is protected. Both compounds SDC1801 and 1802 are protected, but both compounds do not have the manufacture of patented.. The compounds are similar but not identical. SDC 1802 has protected patent coverage now up to 2039ish. I am fairly sure submarine patents are for 17 years and not 20.
We can continue development on 1801. SDC1802 is oncology. 1801 is autoimmune. We can safely hypothesise that at a later stage with SDC1801 that should Sareum choose to do so, they can add a similar level of protection to the 1801 compound ( as is not used for oncology), further increasing patent lifespan by the patent protection pertaining to the manufacturing of the compound. Maximising share holder value, i dare say.

SDC 1801 looking good in all aspects.

Regards

Good morning Citizen79. great post from you as always.
Just a reminder, I am certain you are already well aware.

'TYK2 and Jak1 are critical for signal transduction of many key cytokines driving psoriasis. TYK2 is mainly associated with IL-23 and IL-12 signalling (Tokumasa et al., 2007) in T cells (Ishizaki et al., 2011), whereas many other cytokines signal through Jak1 in keratinocytes (Sohn et al., 2013).''

IL signalling and keratinocytes

Nothing has changed.

Tyk2 Jak1. No mention of Jak2 or 3 are critical and monoclonal antibodies are very costly, administered via injection ( can be self administered). Skyrizi is associated with some very severe side effects.

A competitive market yes. If you have one of the best inhibitors, if not the best inhibitor then the competitiveness will not be a problem.
Then you can a have one of the best inhibitors and then that will be subject to how it is administered. remember our FLT+3 great compound but formulation issues. We do not have this problem with SDC compounds. Extreme high purity via patent protected 'crystallisation formulation of a compound'

I am pretty sure at some stage that SDC 1801 will gain vital long term protection with a similar patent being applied to.

Bare in mind that there is a finite amount of molecules that you can formulate compounds from. Many like ours are heavily patented. It will at some time become increasingly difficult to formulate new compounds ie Kinase inhibitors (although still at relatively early stages especially with regards to Tyk2) as many molecular formulations are taken by Pharma's and that includes those that have failed.

Regards

Just read your 10.18 post HbD. Figure i were going to put was 200 million plus milestone payments of 70 million. 270 million total as upfront offer. It would certainly go a long way.

Regards

No problem HbD been busy with on jobs around house.
I am not saying that it all 737 is worth. It was just an acknowledgement that Sareum could sell their 27.5% interest. Until we hear of developments with regards to GSK737 then not a great deal we can do. If GSK push ahead with 737 in combo then I would be very sure that our share would be worth considerably more.

If GSK were wanting the Sareum 27.5% they would be approaching the BOD.

Better kept for milestone payment and royalties when due as you say. Regarding HNWI coming on board, how will they convince him or her ( or somewhere in between) it is a good investment unless they have a ball park figure in mind for end of Stage 1b clinical trials?
Putting myself in the position of a HNWI I would want to know approximate timeframe, potential worth, what and if other plans Sareum have to raise funds ? At what point will Sareum either license or sell? Effectively this is what I am putting in so how much should I expect to get back for what I am putting in at this moment in time? It does make me conclude that the HNWI's will have more of an idea of the strategy and financial worth of our compounds than we do.

Sareum dont give much info out. They do say subject to further funding. How much are we looking at? When are they looking to raise?

Late pre clinical or early clinical was their statement. 737 was licensed circa 6 months after clinical trial approval to Pronai Therapeutics.

I understand there is not a great deal Timbo can say, as leads to too much speculation. We know CTA submitted and we know they expect to start clinical trial by end of year. Many on here expect this SP to be over 5 pounds a share.

Until further news there is very little we can do. I still stick by, license at least of SDC1801 stage1 dose escalation trial result. If the results were naff then no need raise further funds. However, this is extremely unlikely to be the case. More a case of on satisfactory dose escalation results ( confirmation and just how good they actually are) then we will have access to further funding if so required. As Seawolf says he says funding for 1802 not being a problem, agree 100% neither do I.

Regards

I think you have hit the nail on the head there Wellington99. The objective of CW to delay so as to allow money generation from viewings taking effect later in the year. It still has it associated risks. Impending court case, covid and of course the pockets being squeezed due to energy prices. I would think CW ought to come out Ok. PH recently put a SP target of around 30p per share prior to recent scaremongering by the media. I am not insinuating that this is the level it will return to soon. Much work with negotiation and restructuring will be required I feel.

Regards

Good afternoon HbD. As far as I am aware the potential milestone payments owned by Sareum could be sold on as they effectively own it along with potential Royalties. Royalties would equate to around roughly 3% of market sales if 737 were approved for clinical use. Approx 70 million in milestones and taking 737 on a very modest 500 million a year (based on 1% of current kinase inhibitor market of 57 million dollars) equates to roughly 15 million a year royalties.
Not sure how the BOD would react if someone offered 75 million as is stands now.

https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/Kinase-Inhibitors-Market/

Assessment of your submission
The initial combined review assessment will be completed within 30 days of being submitted. Applications for healthy volunteer trials and sponsor-determined phase I trials in non-oncology patients may qualify for a shortened assessment time and MHRA will work with the research ethics committee to endeavour to expedite these applications. You should state on your covering letter if you think your trial is eligible. Note that trial designs that stretch to investigating the benefit of the treatment to participants may not be eligible for the expedited assessment timeframe.

We will tell you the outcome of your submission along with the outcome of the research ethics committee review, via the combined review process, which could be:

acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorisation
acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorisation subject to conditions
grounds for non-acceptance of the request for a clinical trial authorisation
If we raise grounds for non-acceptance you will have the opportunity to respond, usually within 14 days; however this may be extended on request.

Communication informing the applicant of the MHRA and ethics committee decision following receipt of the responses will usually be sent within 60 days of us receiving the original valid application. If an extension to the response date has been agreed this will impact the final decision timeline.

Notification of the decision relating to a gene therapy, somatic cell therapy (including xenogenic cell therapy) product, tissue engineered product, or products containing genetically modified organisms (Regulation 19 of SI1031) will be sent within 90 days of us receiving the original application unless otherwise advised.

We have moved from paper to automated electronic communication. To ensure that you receive all our correspondence please ensure that you add MHRA_CT_Ecomms@mhra.gov.uk to your safe sender email list. We will only send official correspondence to the named applicant email address.

Common issues identified during clinical trial applications
More than half of all clinical trial authorisation (CTA) applications for investigational medicinal products (IMPs) received by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) require additional information to be submitted before they are considered approvable. Many of the issues identified are common and avoidable if available guidance is followed or if a satisfactory justification for not following the applicable guidance is provided in the application.

link below. Last updated July 22
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/clinical-trials-for-medicines-apply-for-authorisation-in-the-uk

With regards to CTA Sareum will be notified within 30 days of receipt of application of an initial decision. they would then have 14 days to respond or can be increased further with agreement with those reviewing the application. I not think we will experience problems with this, Sareum are switched on in some ways and this one I am 100% certain they have have sewn up. Like most regulating bodies if you approach them correctly and ask advice they will be there to help.
I believe after 60 days they then get the official confirmed nod.

Regards

Great post fearg. Agree 100%. I have a couple of slight concerns with regards to P53 as over proliferation can lead to liver cancer,. CHK1 regulates P53 checkpoint, This will be dose dependant as we know. I am pretty certain we not have a problem here especially when used in combo. Need to get my head around a recent report Aug 22 Link below. It will take a while. Most likely myself trying to understand and I do have my limitations.

https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/16/2860/707597/Constitutive-Activation-of-the-Tumor-Suppressor

Regards

I will post this again just as a reminder.

From Journal of Thoracic oncology
Pimarily SCLC

Dec 2019 The SRA737 þ LDG
regimen mimicked the schedule currently being used in the clinical trial described above with or without anti–
PD-L1 on the third day of a weekly cycle. We did not observe a significant antitumor effect with any single agent treatments (anti–PD-L1, SRA737, or LDG), and only a moderately delayed tumor growth with combined
SRA737 and PD-L1 treatment (Fig. 4A). However, we observed remarkable tumor regressions when we combined SRA737 þ LDG with anti–PD-L1. All mice achieved some level of tumor regressions and 8 of 10 (80%) mice had complete tumor regressions which were sustained up to 60 days post treatment.

Here we show that the SRA737 þ LDG regimen in combination with anti–PD-L1 enhances dendritic cells in the tumor and leads to a decrease in pro-tumorigenic MDSC populations. Most notably, the establishment of the strong antitumor immune microenvironment observed when SRA737 is combined with low-dose gemcitabine opens an opportunity for a highly efficacious and tolerable treatment regimen with a potentially distinct mechanism from that
of standard chemotherapy or DDR inhibitors alone.

Further studies are warranted to determine if this approach would be beneficial with other chemotherapies, such as low-dose platinum-based doublets, in combination with ICB and DDR inhibitors. Whereas the RPP SCLC model used in the immune-competent animal experiments represents only part of the heterogeneity of
SCLC, our previous work with olaparib and prexasertib in combination with anti–PD-L1 suggests that our observations are more broadly applicable to SCLC.8,12,23 As with many other cancer types, pre-clinical studies are limited to only a few immune-competent models of SCLC, consequently further validation of the combinations described here, will likely need to take place in a clinical setting. Given that anti–PD-L1 drugs have recently been approved as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of SCLC, and that the SRA737 þ LDG regimen is well tolerated in clinical trials in SCLC (NCT02797977), our preclinical data provide a strong rationale for combining this regimen with inhibitors of PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in the clinic.

Much work has been done in combo therapy with startling results. This below

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=smal+cell+long+cancer+effective+treatment+of&ru=%2fvideos%2fsearch%3fq%3dsmal%2520cell%2520long%2520cancer%2520effective%2520treatment%2520of%26%26FORM%3dVDVVXX&view=detail&mid=2325069EF400036936022325069EF40003693602&&FORM=VDRVRV

scroll into to circa 11mins 25secs. checkpoint inhibitors.
Not sareum.
Nivolumab, in combination with ipilimumab is indicated for the treatment of intermediate or poor risk, previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma.
There are some very bad side effects with this treatment. 737 in a much more favourable position.