Member Info for Scrodingerscat

We've had one cargo lifted at $100+ there are roughly 12/13 cargos per year so a few more weeks and that's 2 cargos. Even if the conflict is resolved today it will take weeks for oil to flow back to under $90 and that's ignoring the transit times and jittery insurance and reinsurance markets. Most likely USA will assault Kharg Island, 5000 combat personnel don't travel half way round the world for no reason.

Commentators are saying this is the biggest energy shock in history. Not looking forward to the resulting inflation but if oilers start posting bumper cash flows the SP has to be reflective. I'm in a few oilers and think I could beat inflation this time around.

Where has anyone said that?

If a deal is confident (TM last week) in being made in 2026. It still makes no fiscal sense for the reasons given to push ahead, despite that presentation, with again no guarantee of success. Now if it's a hedge for failure of P140 that makes perfect sense but that is not what TM said. They are aiming for another licensing deal in 2 years or go it alone but still years off revenues and more than an equal chance of failure. Investors are just tired of this, IMM has been at this for 20 years.

Why you care about the long term here I've no idea. You're a trader by your own admission so will be out on the next spike.

They will have expired, they only would need to RNS if taken up or extended. The full accounts will have to include this information though, for both companies. So considering the sale of the original holding was at a loss and the warrants weren't worth taking up, basically our investment that we were diluted for meant we were diluted for no gain whatsoever. Yet still to some he's the man to take this forward, can't even sell what by all accounts is a good cosmetic product. If he's the Messiah then we are all damned.

Exactly Nolupus, the everything is ok brigade cannot argue that TM specifically has gone back on his word and not just once, it's habitual for him. Distractions, lies, excuses, or just never mentioning things he's said or done ever again. If he apologised that would go a long way, but this facade of painting everything is on track is just not a reality people share and rightly so. Lanstead are hated across AIM because they are value extractors plain and simple and them being portrayed as upstanding investors is for the birds, this deal costs them £0.00.

I don't really understand how people can't seperate the science from the leadership, TM is paid exceptionally well for an AIM company with zero revenues and IMM will do just fine without him. He's only part time as well and everybody forgets all that money we funneled into INC for absolutely zero gain. Get the guy out, he's not a deal maker any deal he's ever made has fallen apart or gone quiet (Avion & Marionnaud) we'd be better off with a bag of chips in charge.

Nolupus you are right that it is not possible to see who voted for what resolution, only the chairman will know not even TM has that information. However the numbers suggest that Lansteads share of the vote is likely mobilised behind the BOD.

Also to be clear Lanstead do not pay anything upfront for these shares they pay IMM a portion based on how much they get when sold. How the hell is that an investment and why do they have equal voting rights for free.

The only winners here are Lanstead Nolupus. Well that and TM. Now Tim says shareholder value will be created but he's been saying that raise after raise, year after year. The year of delivery was 2025 now it's we can have our wages paid until 2028.

Now what I do begrudge in particular is Lanstead get 100 million shares with ordinary voting rights, and they vote for whatever suits TM. If TM was on the level the agreement would be Lanstead can't use those shares to vote. Considering they are just going to hold the shares to be sold it's completely unfair to any other holders, this gives Tim a huge chunk of votes in his corner. So he knows come 2027 he's got huge backing despite only holding 0.3% of the shares in issue. That's what's more rotten about this than just the dilution.

Nolupus that is correct. Though considering 20% of the shares are held by Hargreaves Lansdowne for PI's I wonder whether writing to them to include a special resolution to vote on TM's appointment would be worth a shot in advance of the AGM. You need 5% support for an AGM resolution.

Rookie "sit tight" suggests you don't believe the ship is sinking and the captain isn't incompetent and out for himself or at least Lanstead. Well some people do.

Basic cause and effect, you say something and do the opposite it creates a negative reaction. TM genuinely didn't believe he would get this reaction and cobbling these interviews together demonstrates he has completely lost control of the narrative. The truth is generally a clear and concise explanation, not akin of one of Grandpa Simpsons ludicrous rants. People need to stop focusing on what Tim says now, as he's a proven and habitual liar, look at his actions. His current actions are taking a ridiculous finance deal at current share price depths, giving away over a 5th of the value of the company for what is tantamount to potentially sweet FA. Where's the market research on the product? Have they been talking to physicians and type 1 diabetes patients... Of course not because what we do here is tell people what they need not ask them, some posters here have already provided clear evidence that there isn't a gap in the market that Tim suggests there is. You can't keep saying every product has a billion dollar market, that just means diabetes is a common ailment, makes no bearing on future or potential revenues because if there are already better treatments out there, or ones far more advanced it's a waste of time and resources.

I didn't Google it, I suggested you should though again because you are wrong. Day trader, weekly trader, monthly trader all the exact same principle you cap your gains because you cannot beat the compounding of time, scientific and economic studies have been undertaken on what is the best strategy and it's investing for the long haul as you said earlier in your own way but now flipped as tradey mctraderson. Most traders 80% in fact can't beat the market and therefore would be better off buying a tracker fund.

Your own argument was people need to invest for the long term and yet you're a trader, so do the opposite of what you do then. You are so back to front you don't know what you are telling people they need to do.

Wrong again tool. Google it, factual that traders lose more often and in larger amounts than investors. Let me know when you've overtaken Berkshire Hathaway. As if that's all you have as a comeback. Another factually incorrect statement we can add to your list.

Pokerchips what timeframe should people expect for it to be thinking long term, 30 years? 50 years? 100 years? Tempus immemorial? The fact you think you know how this industry works better than most on here is beyond laughable, it's a gamble yes but it helps not to have the Casino Manager steal your eyes before you sit at the card table. Don't be a tool your whole life will you.

I'm fully aware that biotech requires funding in the early stages of the lifecycle but your argument falls apart because they have had 20 years. This is not a company in the first 10 years of it's development. Shareholders are not to blame for the failure of Lupuzor in clinical trials, nor the failure of the board to secure partnerships, or signing up for options in Incanthera with no revenues to name just a few of the litany of unforced errors. Why are you so adamant on putting the blame onto those who have no impact on how the business is run and the decisions that have reduced the value here by 90%. You're a toad defending the indefensible, you buy your share certificates you expect to be told the truth because there's entire rules on false or misleading statements. Your only argument is that's how it is, well we will see how TM fares if he continues to lie and not deliver, it's P45 he will see being delivered not P140.

Pokerchips I was in 2 minds of responding because you have taken this dilution in isolation while I clearly detailed and lamented the on average raises of every 18 months or so since the company listed. I believe that at original listing of the shares in 2006 the mcap was similar to today and traded at about 50p. That's a value reduction of 1 share by 90% and requires a 10 fold increase or mcap of $250M+ to break even (excluding 20 years of inflation). So realistically anyone holding long term and looking to recover needs closer to £1 per share to be just running at sticking that investment in a savings ISA for 20 years. That break even of $250M valuation is also beyond some blue sky predictions of where this could go.

The fact you try to blame investors for the current predicament is beyond belief. If it wasn't for those stupid investors (everyone besides you I assume, with your superior powers of foresight) buying those shares Lanstead sell, the company would have been wound up long ago.

che7win keep hitting the nail on the head. some people don't get it, dilution is without a doubt the most expensive form of finance. debt is cheaper and tax deductible. if this is to grow to a $100m market cap that $6m has cost you $20m in value, now if this was a one off or even a few times early in a companies growth then fine. people could understand or for actual quantifiable progress beyond guff, but it's happened over 15 years and many, many times and compounded by the lanstead factor is a drag on the mcap, because it's an agreement that requires constant selling of shares irrespective of demand. i hate to calculate how much value has been gifted away for a company that's been around for close to nearly 2 decades and still has no revenues. remember tim said imm would look to make some spare cash off of licensing for avion products in europe. guy's full of ****, he can't even remember half the lies he's told.

LSBM you have decided to take the roll of devil's advocate this morning (I don't recollect your contributions previously so will give the benefit of the doubt).

I have to strongly disagree with your fundamental position that IMM's relationship with Lanstead is a conventional mutually beneficial partnership. Lanstead take absolutely no risk here, as long as IMM is listed they can sell shares and even if IMM folded they only pay a portion back to IMM as the shares are sold. In symbiotic relationships there are 3 kinds of partnerships mutualism, commensalism and parasitism. Partnerships should be formed under mutualism but 6 out of the last 8 sharing agreements have been heavily at the cost to equity, so tell me how over the last 10 years has Lanstead been anything other than parasitic? So why is the CEO continuing to champion what within even in your own suggestion, facilitating sub par financial agreements. Shouldn't Ketan Patel be bringing in better quality investors rather than bottom of the barrel death spiral finance lenders?

LSBM that would all be fair and well but it doesn't wash because A. IMM had no plans to advance Kapiglucagon until Lanstead asked. B. This needs to stop being framed as an investment, Lanstead offer no upfront cash. The money IMM gets from Lanstead is funded from share sales, from buyers of shares like all of us here. If it was really a genuine investment then Lanstead would have been happy to have a lock in agreement that required them to hold for the 2 year development period. C. Tim is employed by IMM not Lanstead.

that interview explains nothing but yet everything. so basically lanstead approached tim to say we need more shares to sell, they had a long hard think and this is the bs excuse we will go with. lanstead will not keep any of these shares so the "investment" is complete horse ****. he acknowledged what he said previously, but this is not a raise apparently so he hasn't lied. it's strictly for developing kapiglucagon, that will take 2 years to get to licensing at best. shareholders just want something finalised without another pivot costing millions, what's stopping lanstead continuing to come back again and again asking for more shares so they dust another development off the shelf. get this clown out, his voice was clearly breaking, like he was being grilled by paxman in a tickle tummy interview. he should be investigated for his relationship with lanstead and how they continue to be allowed to keep shafting us.

if the market was still open i would've sold it all, ceo out, he's a stone cold liar. 5 months gone since last time he raised his head and they are still only talking to prospective partners, it was supposed to be done in december 2025 tim and it appears you've made no progress. tell you what i'm confident if he doesn't get a deal done he's toast. probably get taken on by lanstead in their pr team.

Pal320 unlikely because it's a breach of his fiduciary rules as CEO of an AIM listed company to grant "favours" over other holders, the WRAP is clearly to placate other holders. Particularly Duty to Act in Good Faith... A director must act in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole (Section 172). Doing a "favour" that dilutes existing shareholders for no, or inadequate, commercial return is a breach of this duty. This is particularly why it's an AGM matter.

i think he was stupid enough to think the share price wouldn't tank on the announcement. probably was expecting the sp to fall to around the offer price, reality is it's caused wide spread selling. then there's lanstead who sell come rain or shine as soon as they get a hold of their shares. if this holds above 4p in the short term i'd be surprised.

wonder if people have been contacting lisa like they were all recently. wonder what lines she can take with this **** sandwich. looks like a deal was close after all but with lanstead.