Member Info for sicilian_kan

The placing. The question is the strike price. My guess is that Placees will want 2p. After that hopefully onwards and upwards.

Woody, not quite. First we await the placing that will hopefully be authorised tomorrow. Only once the placing has happened should we await the licensing deal.

If he was just joking, why didn't he say "On this occasion no deal is definitely better than a bad deal..."

The fact that he said the opposite declares their true position, namely "On this occasion a bad deal is definitely better than no deal...", which is what was said.

That is also obviously a matter of fact as VAL do not have the financial capacity to fund the next trial (£20m).

It is either (a) just darn stupid to go about declaring mid-negotiations that a bad deal is acceptable (damaging to both shareholders and more importantly to the negotiations), or alternatively (b) the board are setting shareholder expectations.

Clearly said "On this occasion" at the start. Odd thing to randomly joke about. Sends out the message that they would accept a bad deal. Much more likely to be expectation setting.

Reading between the lines, this appears to be what is going on.

1. 401 will be a bad deal from an up front perspective, see (a) the COO's comments today about a bad deal being better than no deal, and (b) the need for such large headroom at the GM. Hopefully, the deal will be with a recognisable Top 100 Pharma and they can keep a decent royalty / get some milestoned a couple of years down the line. Hopefully, the drug will go into Phase 3 and will not have another larger Phase 2 first. But these latter two points remain matters of risk at this stage.

2. There will be a placing if the GM resolutions are approved, to keep the lights on.

3. Point 1. above and the variables within will set the share price post-deal. Good variable outcomes and a very large rise later this year is possible. Bad variable outcomes and VAL will still be scrabbling around.

At 2:52

COO states "On this occasion a bad deal is definitely better than no deal..."

Warrants are irrelevant. If any warrant holders wanted shares, they could buy them today at 2.8p. Why would they want to pay 4.5p? All the warrant does is give arbitrage opportunities at higher prices.

harley24, they raised £950k before placing expenses on 4 May.

I think they will need to raise again in August.

Better for them to raise sooner than later - get it out of the way, avoid speculation of the same, and then take time concluding negotiations to get the best possible 401 deal.

Here is the score, from my perspective. There are two alternatives that will happen very soon. Either:

1. The resolutions fail. The company share price will then be destroyed, going to say 1p immediately thereafter; or

2. The resolutions pass. In which case there will be a fundraising exercise at the likely price of 2p. It is hoped that a 401 deal will follow.

Both options exhibit short term pain for shareholders, however only option 2 holds the prospect of a significant rise in the weeks thereafter.

There is the possibility of a decent rise on other news in the interim, but whilst possible, this cannot be expected or assumed by investors. Any news will not be of a deal as the resolutions are required for the negotiations. Only news of a deal will truly help the share price given the funding requirements of VAL and the low share price and lack of sentiment.

Conclusions:

1. Voting in favour of the resolutions is the only sensible option;

2. There is a significant chance of significant short term pain, whatever the outcome of the resolutions;

3. I suspect there will be many waiting on the sidelines pending the vote fundraising. Others will sell into rises like the £30k seller yesterday.

4. However, thereafter, there could be a very significant share price rise after the gm / any fundraising. With money raised for a deal, and the prospect of a deal being agreed thereafter, speculation at that point will be high.

In summary, short term pain, but if the resolutions are voted for, medium term gain.

It is obviously a sell. The price was 2.75p to 3.25p at the time. It’s also not that large a trade. Not really of any interest.

This point is clear:

Verbatim quote from the BRR interview of 14 June 2018 at 1:16 re Peter Weinstein...

"about three years ago he also became involved in the corporate development of 401. Now this has involved introducing the project to American companies and really exploits his contact and experience in this area both with the LEGAL NEGOTIATIONS and the original introductions"

www.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcasts/5b223edf02f5e74d0f2dc968/valirx-val401-update

I.e. not just expressions of interest and initial discussions, but actual legal negotiations are taking place regarding 401. That demonstrates why they are able to say "advanced conversations" are taking place "with a number of possible partners"

We now have the official heads up that a deal is likely. Just need to vote yes to those resolutions to make it happen / maximise value for the reasons given in my posts at 16:43 and 17:10 yesterday.

In my view, Tarquin is a waste of space. You'll have to make your own mind up.

By way of example:

- He is not prompt at responding to simple emails;
- His responses to me have never been helpful and he has not once given a proper answer to a very simple and answerable question I was asking him.

I have the copy emails with Tarquin to back this up. Quite frankly I gave up. In my view, VAL should fire him and his PR firm.

If only one resolution is passed, it will be harder for VAL to raise funds. Indeed for companies of VAL's size, it is usual practice for pre-emption rights to be waived.

Any licensing partner may either not be comfortable doing a deal if only one resolution is passed, or more likely, they may smell blood and do so at reduced terms and with lower up front, milestones, royalties etc.

However unpalatable waiving pre-emption rights are for shareholders who have suffered here in the past years (fortunately not me), shareholders will merely be shooting themselves in the foot if they do not approve both resolutions.

Any monies from licensing 401 will be owned by the jv subsidiary Valiseek, not VAL.

VAL still therefore needs funding, just not for Valiseek or 401. Monies for 301, 201 and 101 will come from VAL not Valiseek, albeit VAL should have a greatly increased share price if Valiseek does a licensing deal, given VAL's 55% ownership of Valiseek.

If VAL has no authority to raise monies (and following the agm, it does not have that authority), then it will go bust. It needs that authority. When it does any raise and at what price is a completely separate issue.

Importantly, any licensing partner will want to know who they are getting into bed with. They won't want the major owner (55%) of Valiseek to go bust; leaving them in bed with someone else, outside of their control and whom they may not have wanted to go to bed with.

Therefore VAL need to demonstrate that they can raise funds. The GM resolutions must be approved by shareholders.

VAL needs the 401 / Valiseek licensing deal to significantly increase the VAL share price, and prove to shareholders that they have a compound with proven commerciality (licensing deal). The share price rise on a licensing deal should be substantial, however VAL also needs the GM authority to be able to achieve this.

VAL put out an RNS in mid-June stating that "Advanced conversations have continued with a number of prospective partners with the aim of achieving a partnership". It was the first time they had used the word "advanced".

We all know what advanced means. It means that there is something actually on the table being negotiated, not a mere expression of interest or data review etc.

Any company with VAL's track record on discussions using the word "advanced" for the first time in an RNS would inevitably have the NOMAD review that RNS to ensure that the word "advanced" was being accurately used.

I know people here are frustrated. I know they don't trust the management and I know they have let down shareholders before, but the biggest gains to be made are usually when sentiment is at its lowest and when it hasn't changed to reflect the forthcoming developments.

Shareholders here have been given the biggest possible hints as to what might happen. If there is a licensing deal, anyone who misses out on being invested at that time, cannot say they were not warned of the possibility of the same.

As ever, nothing is ever certain. DYOR and only invest money you can afford to lose.

"The board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and shareholders for the directors to be able to allot shares. This is both for purposes of fundraising to progress clinical trial programmes and also as a component of negotiations for commercial transactions and licensing deals."

They have formally stated that the funds are a component of negotiations for commercial transactions and licensing deals.

What I ask is a commercial transaction that is not a licensing deal...interesting question...

get2bidnis, you make a good point for discussion. I would say the difference between GGP and Telfer is this - based on today only esearch, as ever DYOR etc, these are just first thoughts.

Telfer had 3.8 Mt @ 9.6 g/t Au, mainly of oxide ore (easy to process), obtained via open pit. This was the cash cow that funded much of the mining infrastructure required. This does not exist for GGP's deposit.

When Telfer started underground, they had a high grade core reserve of 1 Mt @ 15.6 g/t gold, 2.6% copper.

Yes the underground reserves are much lower grades than that now. But they are currently conducting underground mining at a loss. See the news articles where they have had to rebut closure suggestions.

All in sustaining costs in H2 17 for Telfer were $1,391/oz!

All in sustaining costs in H1 18 for Telfer were $1,227/oz!

In H1 18, Telfer was operating on a negative cash flow.

No one, would ever build a whole mine from scratch for grades of 3g/t at over 400m deep, with underground mining.

All that matters here is really this. How big is the high mineralised zone of 11.5m at 21.23g/t gold and 0.67% copper from 568.5m, from Hole 1. How far does that extend and with what grades and widths.

That will be what is drilled for and mined at the outset and which will constitute the value of any deal.

Travis61, you clearly do not understand the difference between open pit mining (1g/t being fine) and deep underground mining (1g/t would be a joke).

Hole 1 has the potential to be extremely commercial. That hole is outstanding - fact.

Also a fact - these hole do not show commercial grades.

The extent of the gold (the potentially mineable area) will be much clearer in second phase drilling. For which there will be a little delay. Simple point.

3g/t for a deep underground mine (starting from 488m deep) is in my view uncommercial.

Find me one other underground mine operating at that depth with that grade.