Member Info for Thompi

After attending the AGM, I’m confident that RH has a plan for dealing with the CLN. The only uncertainty is whether, having only joined at the end of May, he’s had enough time to sort this particular instalment. Like everyone else, I have no idea whether the payment will be made in cash or shares.

I’m encouraged by the fact that he’s not part of the usual circle of NEDs linked to CC and SC. RH looks set to bring fresh ideas, new options, and a much-needed sense of purpose to the board.

It’s difficult to put into words, but in person, he made SC seem like a lightweight by comparison.

Https://www.linkedin.com/in/yulii-bogatyrenko-944925?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app

Hopefully this link will work to YB’s LinkedIn profile page.

I was at the AGM, and Richard Hughes came across as very confident about sorting the CLN - not necessarily in one go, but in stages. He had a no-nonsense, get-things-done attitude that stood out. Very different from SC.

Whether he can pull it off in under eight weeks (he only joined the board on 28th May) is another matter. But he was convincing, and I believed him.

Wyn,

Has MM ever actually been right with his Mystic Myles predictions? Some of his ramptastic forecasts have been embarrassingly wide of the mark.

Wyn,

Ice has the maturity of an eleven-year-old and his pomposity almost rivals Ophidian’s.

But just a bit of constructive criticism - you do post a lot on a share you’re not invested in (I think it was eight times yesterday), and you know it winds people up. It’s up to you how much you post - but maybe consider keeping it to once or twice a day? Or maybe not at all?

Thorn,

I don’t know anything about the share other posters have referred to, and I’ve had shares go bust myself - I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. But equally, you have to accept that you’ve spent years provoking and goading LTHs, so I’m personally finding the new evangelical transformation a bit hard to take, to be honest.

And from the AGM slide deck - “Confidence that the pre|CISION platform is increasingly well suited/attractive to pharma partnerships for a range of oncology indications”

Heights receive their shares at a 10% discount to the Volume Weighted Average Price (VWAP) of Avacta’s shares over a defined period. So if Richard Hughes can line up a buyer with sticky hands, and the deal is priced somewhere in that discounted range, then I can more than live with that. Obviously I hope it is not at a discount….

I agree 54retiresoon re £10.

I regularly disagree with Icecool – not on the science, but on the importance of having the right commercial team to do it justice. I think Ice’s view is sometimes too simplistic. So when he says the current share price is irrelevant and talks about bed wetters etc, we have exchanged differences of opinion.

In my view, the share price is very important. It doesn’t currently reflect the inherent value of the Precision platform, and it also sets a base for negotiations to begin - something RH is clearly committed to improving, both in the short term and the long term. With the addition of RH in particular, I think we finally have someone who can help extract maximum value for shareholders, while also recognising that long-term holders want to see further dilution kept to a minimum.

For what’s it worth I added to my share holding today.

I also attended the AGM. Whilst the NASDAQ dual listing was mentioned in the recent Preliminary Results as a longer-term objective, it wasn’t brought up during the AGM itself. From informal conversations with the Board over tea and coffee, I came away with a similar impression to 54retiresoon - that NASDAQ is currently seen as a distraction, with more immediate priorities to be addressed. RH was very good.

Richard Hughes was impressive. Very confident and very straight talking with a liberal smattering of the ‘F’ word to emphasise a point. It really sounded as though he means business. I think he will be a huge asset to the company and investors.

That is my assumption too Cj. Last year, there were two versions of the presentation — one delivered live to attendees, and a shorter, pre-recorded version (without an audience) that was uploaded to the website later in the afternoon. I’d expect something similar this year.

This is the wording from the RNS, although it’s not entirely clear:

“The Company will provide a business update following the AGM, which will be recorded and uploaded on the Company’s website for shareholders who are not able to attend in person. All presentation materials will be made available on the website at the end of the day and no new material information will be provided.”

Ben, I think you need to edit your post to Eggy and change the “Get out have a life” to ‘half-life”. After all, it has been such a concern to Thorn regarding AVA6000. Still - I am so glad he is invested now 😬

Ice, I agree with your point that “the better the data, the better the deals.”

However, I don’t share your view that “they are under zero pressure to make deals.” They have cash runway into Q1 2026 and the Coris sale appears to be nearing completion, but it’s unclear how much that will actually add to the coffers. At some stage, in the not too distant future they are going to require additional funding. In my view, they are under significant pressure to secure a deal - not so much with AVA6103 which is too valuable - but either with AVA6000 or through a collaboration that couples the pre|CISION technology with a partner’s payload.

I’m off to the AGM next week. I think there will be a lot of questions regarding the CLN and funding.

Thorn you talk the biggest load of bull💩.

Had your rubbish filtered for ages then made the mistake of unfiltering you. You are not worth the aggravation. Binned you twat.

I disagree, Thorn. As Pedro suggests - you are bluffing.

The PL research note states “any milestones from this collaboration are likely to be received as shares in the parent entity,” reflecting a consistent pattern where Avacta’s equity stake in Affyxell has grown with past milestone achievements. This trend strongly suggests that future milestones will likely further increase Avacta’s ownership percentage in a comparable way.

Your post that “it involves ongoing payments to ensure participation and their share of the joint development” is carp. As is the suggestion that AVCT have defaulted on any payments. It is a complete fabrication.

Thorn,

Avacta’s contribution to the Affyxell JV is through its Affimer technology - so intellectual property, rather than cash. Therefore there are no funding concerns relating to Affyxell.

Thorn, having put up with your posts over the past few years while you weren’t even invested (and God knows why people who aren’t invested feel the need to post endlessly on these boards), including your recent nonsense about half-life concerns, I’m struggling to get behind this new, supposedly invested version of you. There’s just too much history.

So, to quote your own words - “Sorry if that annoys you but I guess you're going to have to live with it”.

For fecks sake Thorn - where does it say they have “dropped” STS? The intention, as per the recent presentation, is to treat up to 30 patients. But, the focus is on accelerated approval for SGC which is the quickest route to market for AVA6000. As Chris, on this board, has said - they are going after the low hanging fruit.

You are twisting words and scaremongering.

Thorn, for pity’s sake - the Phase 1a part of the trial was specifically designed to assess the safety and tolerability of AVA6000, and it included a heterogeneous mix of cancer indications, some of which - like pancreatic cancer - are not known to be sensitive to doxorubicin. This has been covered repeatedly in multiple presentations. The three expansion indications were then specifically chosen because they are sensitive to doxorubicin.

Chris gave a very clear explanation in the results presentation as to why SGC has now taken priority over STS.

There are two key reasons:

1. Encouraging internal data from the SGC cohort - strong responses in a rare cancer with high unmet need and no standard of care.

2. External regulatory shift - a Phase 3 trial by Boehringer Ingelheim using an MDM2 inhibitor in dedifferentiated liposarcoma failed, but the comparator arm (doxorubicin monotherapy) unexpectedly performed well, with a PFS over 8 months. Since doxorubicin is also the comparator for AVA6000 in STS, this raises the regulatory bar significantly.

These two factors combined led Avacta to reassess and adjust its strategic priorities - a pragmatic and data-driven decision. It is discussed at approximately 1:18:25 into the presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajabya7WHQc

Thorn, I genuinely don’t understand your ‘issue’ with the half-life of AVA6000 - because there isn’t one. Tim shared a link back in March. In it, Francis is very clear: “With doxorubicin, the payload is cleared quite slowly, so you don’t need to keep it there longer.”

It’s been mentioned in other presentations too - most recently by CC during the results presentation: “We don’t need a sustained release mechanism because the half-life of doxorubicin alone is so long — it’s a full 35 hours.”

There is no half-life issue with AVA6000.

The IP filing in September/October last year was for the sustained release mechanism being used for AVA6103 and potential other warheads. Exatecan does have a half-life problem which the advances in the pre|CISION have overcome.