Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Lordloadsoflolly,
As I said before, you remained invested in IMM and have added more. You have not sold out while you still can. For what reasons?
Is it because you're hoping IMM will NOT do at least a deal, will NOT multibag from the current share price IMM is at now or is it IMM will NOT ever start Phase 3 lupus with Lupuzor. Or is it because you're invested hoping IMM will go spiralling down into bankruptcy with the aim of losing your money.
Of course not. You're still invested because exactly the same reasons what GoldGirl believed in IMM and said.
Stop pretending you hypocrite.
Lordloadsoflolly,
Let look back at GoldGirl's recent posts. She said,
"Listen to the March interview of CEO. He talks about riding the share up."
True or False?
"Millions have already been spent before the compound gets even into the clinic".
"And we have such an advanced asset for 2 indications".
"IMM will multibag".
"This is the bottom".
True or False?
"Have late stage assets is better than start-up biotechs.... as for latter harder to raise money and interest rates for borrowing money is so high".
"IMM is a better bet under the current economics".
True or False?
"Consolidating 2.4 - 2.5".
"Hopefully on next news surpass 3p".
True or False?
"I think this will move big when people least expect it too".
"So undervalued it's crazy".
True or False?
GoldGirl's posts are in itself facts and predictions on what potentially would happen and substantiated based on what IMM have said are ongoing and the potential outcome. You yourself lordloadsoflolly, remained invested and in fact so confident as GoldGirl's predictions it will come to pass, accumulated more shares. Why is that so? Because you yourself damn well know where this share price will be heading based on what yourself know what IMM have said. Here you are with a audacity to question GoldGirl's posts.
You said of GoldGirl's posts as "repeated totally unsubstantiated claims" and "spouting further nonsense" and her "myths"
.
What?? What on earth are you talking about lordloadsoflolly? What GoldGirl's posts English words don't you understand? Read her posts again and again. Are her posts unsubstantiated, nonsense, and myths. Does she have to justify and explain it in a kindergarten language so you can understand it. Its you with a child like mind.
I have concluded you have a cabbage brain.
And for Nolupus, I'm not invested in IMM and I'm not nobbygnome. Another hypocrite.
Lordloadsoflolly,
You are nuts. Don't understand your own English you've written.
"I've no idea where the share price is heading".
Lordloadsoflolly certainly knows its not downwards.
correction,
the "a******" should have been written "******"
lordloadsoflolly,
you said,
"i've no idea where the share price is heading",
with
"the price will be significantly higher than now"
you certainly have the optimistic and confidence and know where the share price is heading, and that is upwards.
if you didn't, you would have sold out and salvaged what you have left.
such a person is called a hypocrite or a ******.
as for goldgirl, some of her opinions are facts in itself.
will her predictions come to pass?
lordloadsoflolly certainly believes so, otherwise lords wouldn't still be invested here.
what a hypocrite.
Correction,
Missing few words, should have read, "even though lordloadsoflolly is optimistic and happy having stealthily accumulated enough of this shares".
Lordloadsoflolly won't allow anyone to be optimistic or happy, even though lordloadsoflolly is happy having stealthily accumulated enough of this shares.
Lordloadsoflolly damn well know where this shares will be heading from where it is now and damn well know GoldGirl was making valid truthful statements.
That's really sad.
GoldGirl,
It's not you who should be apologising.
Leaving out the % royalties, you put a figure of 50/50.
How do you know?
Just what 50% ownership CNRS entitled to? Equal say to who IMM allowed to do licencing deal with? Equal share of all IMM future revenues? Equal say what indications should IMM allowed to work on?
Remember you said 50/50. As I said before, you can't put a figure on it.
'shared jointly by CNRS' does not mean 50/50 , 75/25, 80/20 or whatever. You don't know. You can't put a percentage figure on it.
What I can say is CNRS are entitled to 12% of Immupharma's income derived form Lupuzor royalty sales (including upfront payments, milestone payments though not 100% sure on this). The 50/50 patent jointly shared did not equate to 50/50 split in income entitlement if its really that relevant.
Nolupus,
You don't know the truth. You are making it up as you go along. It's you who dug the hole and now you're trying to wiggle your way out.
You said it was 50/50 shared ownership of patent with CNRS.
It is not a 50/50 split with CNRS regarding patent or otherwise. CNRS I believed have 12% (or thereabout) of Immupharma's income arising from Lupuzor deals, royalties etc.
Immupharma never had a share price at 1200p. It was a merger and IMM was listed on AIM London stock market I think it was in 2006.
IMM could consider to do a share consolidation to boost the share price. I wouldn't say 400m shares IMM have now in circulation is too high. To bring it down under 100m would be nice. Certainly would boost the share price for sure.
Quite amazing IMM still have only 400m shares considering the number of years they been operating since their formation and never had share consolidation done. Don't be fooled by other pharma peers on AIM having only tens of millions shares in circulation. Almost all of them have had share consolidation done otherwise they would be in multi billions, if not high in hundred of millions.
Flash212,
Did you went to your mummy and daddy Pokerchips, Dallo and Nolupus to argue for you?
Its obvious The word "latter" is confusing lots of us here. I must admit the wording of the RNS is ambiguous. The way I see it is, the two conditions the significant deal and the 3 years from date of issue are connected. They are conjoined together and cannot be separated. The grant of share options can only be vested after 3 years which is the latter, but only if the significant deal is done with it.
Wigwammer,
Well said.
There is a sentence which say " The Remuneration Committee will determine when these conditions have been met".
It doesn't say "when one of these conditions have been met", but "when these conditions have been met". That imply to me both the significant deal completed and after 3 years have been met.
Flash212
You are a dumb a..
The RNS looks clear to me.
A significant deal must be completed between now and the next 3 years AND only then after 3 years can the grant of share options be vested.
If no significant deal signed and completed within 3 years from now, the grant of share options cannot be vested after 3 years.
But that don't mean it won't be vested at all. They could do a significant deal in, let say 5 years time as long as a significant deal is done and only after 3 years from now, can the grant of share options can be vested. They got 10 years to do it in from now.
Plain simple to me.
Funny when Nolupus said "I haven't been reading the other board for quite a while, but nobbygnome was only one of a very few worth reading on there".
Nolupus would say that because its Nolupus' own posts !