Member Info for Wigwammer

Thank you, peter. Your attempt to move quickly on from your highly embarrassing Lanstead performance is duly noted :)

Well I don’t know about all that, peter. But it certainly suggests you talk a lot of twaddle about things you don’t really understand, like the Lanstead agreement. Fingers crossed your GCSE results show greater aptitude :)

In the meantime, peter :)…. From AI. Do Lanstead have to sell all their shares over the period of the sharing agreement? (as peterpharma previously stated)

“No, Lanstead is not required to sell all of their shares under a typical sharing agreement. While Lanstead will be issued shares and will pay for them, the number of shares is fixed. The amount they owe under the agreement is adjustable based on the company's share price over the agreement's period. Lanstead benefits from the share price increasing, but they are not obligated to sell their shares.

Lanstead is not forced to sell their shares. They can choose to sell or hold their shares, just like any other shareholder. ”

Ah. Once again, nolupus avoids answering the question. Two sides to every coin he says - so where does he think the shares will be if the coin lands positively?… Popular, consensual, selectively factual - all accurate descriptions of your view

Well that’s a very consensual and popular view, nolupus. But I don’t know many small companies trying to move blockbuster indication assets into phase 3 trials. I’m sure with your expert guidance it would be done in a whiz, but for most mortals working at a small company it is likely to take time. Nonetheless, immupharma and p140 have a history of getting to phase 3… Where do you think the share price will be if imm find an additional partner and the trial progresses?

The initial ph3 trial was given the green light in 2011, and first dosing took place in 2016, 5 years later. It is a lengthy process and requires patience, nolupus. On the subject of where the shares may go in the event an additional partner is found and the trial progresses, you are notably silent. Well you wouldn’t want to compromise all your negativity, would you.. ATB

The contract with Simbec was annnounced about 18 months ago, nolupus. Where do you think the share price will be in the event that imm finds an additional partner and the trial progresses? Then we can estimate whether patience may be appropriate or not

Quite right, pokerchips. If you are ever going to make money in biotech then it will likely require patience. Is this board populated with people likely to help in that regard? Good grief no… GLA

I’m pleased you are familiar with it span, and can see it has little to do with cheerleading tim. I think everyone here is familiar with you criticising management and calling the shares down, but at the same time holding on to all the shares you bought at a large premium to where we are now. Conviction stuff

To repeat. The key thing to bear in mind here - and that gets little airtime - is the low valuation and consequent assymetry of return outcomes. Yes - there is great uncertainty, and a material possibility that holders ultimately end up losing 100%. But if instead it turns out that the story progresses, patent protection is achieved and partnerships announced, the shares are likely to rise by multiples of 100%. I would place the odds on each broad outcome at about 50:50, so consequently the risk/return appears highly appealing. But it is important to recognise the downside risk and to only invest an appropriate amount. IMO DYOR GLA

Sorry span, but unlike you I am absolutely clear about why I own the shares. And it isn’t because I’m a Tim cheerleader

Ah well. Lanstead do not have to sell all their shares over the next 5 months. It appears peter was wrong… Time for the consensus sceptics to dig deep and move on to the next list of negatives… :)

The interesting thing supermobile, is that at least 4 posters ticked up peters nonsense post from earlier. So it appears consensus investor man has thrown the towel in, sold his shares, and is now happy to support any negative drivel that supports his decision, whether it makes sense or not. Seems bullish to me :) .. GLA IMO DYOR

From AI. Do Lanstead have to sell all their shares over the period of the sharing agreement? (as peterpharma stated)… I accept your apology, peter, but it is quite funny reflecting on the wording you used about “educating” people :)

“No, Lanstead is not required to sell all of their shares under a typical sharing agreement. While Lanstead will be issued shares and will pay for them, the number of shares is fixed. The amount they owe under the agreement is adjustable based on the company's share price over the agreement's period. Lanstead benefits from the share price increasing, but they are not obligated to sell their shares.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Fixed Share Issuance:

Lanstead receives a predetermined number of shares, which doesn't change based on the share price or the agreement's duration.

Adjustable Payments:

The amount Lanstead owes to the company under the sharing agreement is adjusted monthly based on the company's share price relative to a benchmark price.

Incentivized Performance:

The sharing agreement incentivizes the company to perform well, as Lanstead shares in the upside potential when the share price increases.

No Forced Sale:

Lanstead is not forced to sell their shares. They can choose to sell or hold their shares, just like any other shareholder. ”

This is just waffle, peter. You can’t point to any evidence to support your statement that Lanstead must sell all their shares over the next 5 months, and for a simple reason. It isn’t there!… Lanstead have been given their shares and have committed to paying Imm a monthly amount linked to the share price over that month. Thats it. How they fund it - via share sales or otherwise - is up to them… I’m not the first to correct you here, but hey ho… GLA DYOR

And if it were a requirement that all the shares are divested over the period of the agreement, then explain why only 240k shares were divested per day up to the last holdings RNS? A simple calculation shows they would need to be selling 350k pd. And if they had needed to sell their entire holding after the 2016 sharing agreement as you state, then how did they still have 5%+ left by the time of the trial result, as profit or otherwise? Thanks in advance

It is very simple, peter, and you are simply obfuscating for effect. At no point do immupharma transfer any money to Lanstead, as you state. All that happens is immupharma give the shares to Lanstead, who are then free to do what they want with them. The only thing the agreement stipulates is that Lanstead must make payments to immupharma each month based on calculation related to the prevailing share price over that month.. Or show us where in the agreement/RNS it states otherwise?

Thanks for your response peter, but with respect, you haven’t demonstrated anything. Please show where in the agreement it states that Lanstead have to sell their entire holding to fund the immupharma payments? As of the last holdings RNS, Lanstead had sold around 240k shares per day on average, whereas 350k shares per day would have been required to fully fund the payments. So what money has Lanstead used to bridge the gap? On the date of the trial readout back in 2018, Lanstead continued to hold just over 5% of the company. Please demonstrate that none of this holding related to the sharing agreements? Thanks in advance

Well your average is better than the 3.75p placing participants! Fingers crossed something positive emerges over the next few months. ATB GLA

Well if you buy the shares and say it’s going down you’re bound to get something right, span. What price did you buy?