Member Info for WordSpaghetti

Lostalot the shorter - I haven't ever shorted it or anything. Stop lying.

Nice tracker there, thanks

More good stuff - connections and funding routes at the JPM conference

Good stuff - connections and funding routes at the JPM conference

Lostapound - should be easy to just repost it then. For me, currently, this should be USD100mln-USD200mln (£85mln-£170mln) in line with other stage1 pharmas undergoing clinical trials at current stage. Currently £35mln so under half.

Plenty of upside here. tick tock. back to £20/share soon enough.

Pumpky - yes - for 2026 - then another £10m for 2027-8 so £5m/year 2027, £5m for 2028 - so a 3 year funding plan. Not too bad and by then the trial outcomes will be crystal clear. Dont forget at £35m MCAP £5m/year is 14% needed a year (based on this current, imo base, £6/share). But as we have seen in 2025 they didn't raise £5.6m all in one go it was broadly spread out and I expect the same to be here (unless there is a large single institutional investor/JV partner)

Ah ha ok thanks - do we know how many staff were laid off/how many remain? Usually a company can shrink quite well, especially if most of its costs outlays would be to pay for clinical trials (which appear to be working at least patients 1-3 as far as the most recent update late last year stated):

"...the first three patients treated at the initial dose level and has recommended continuation of the trial with escalation to the next dose level.

The DSMB's positive recommendation follows the successful completion of initial safety assessments for all three patients treated at the lowest dose, with no dose-limiting toxicities observed. The trial will now proceed to the next planned dose cohort in accordance with the FDA-approved clinical protocol.

[...]

The DSMB's clearance to proceed represents a key de-risking milestone in the clinical development of HG-CT-1. It reinforces the favorable safety profile observed to date and signals continued regulatory and operational momentum. For investors, this milestone marks a potential value-inflection point as the Company advances into higher dose cohorts where enhanced efficacy signals are anticipated, paving the way toward broader clinical validation and future pivotal studies."

And prospectus stated "...and will need to raise further funds of £5.6 million then to continue its activities through to the end of 2026" so that doesn't have to occur in February - and as proven, new funds highly likely funds incoming undiscounted or at a premium especially with the above 29/10 clinical trial update which is a major derisking event.

Think this might be the base (excepting any macroeconomic shocks).

Got it, thanks - ok - and the statement also includes the need for funding by february - of which we got £190k and I thought variation still means cash for the co? as that was unforeseen then that should still bring us to the end of Februrary at the least.

In addition, the prospectus states this funding for the continuation of the development activities - not the going concern.

And currently all placings have been at the prevailing SP or at a premium so I am also confident that any additional funds would be funded at values supportive of the current and future SP.

popped a bit in the last couple of days, let's see how this turns out - given if what Hemo below is saying about no more shares available to short, and news over due. Means the market at least is expecting positive news rather than massively discounted placing.

And can anyone evidence the £250k/month expenses rather than the £550k/month conservative ones I estimated?

Where does the prospectus state that?

Checking in here.

"For further comparison, the operating costs for the twelve months to 31 December 2024 were £6,465,846" (and cash at June 2025 was £300k, + £2.2 raised post end (July-30 Sept 2025), so if expenses are about £550k/month (assuming no significant change in USDGBP FX (and actually that's been in UK £ favour in H2 2025)) that gives 5 months from July-November (yup - then prospectus where £1.1 raised in November, then some additional cash recently: an additional £190,000 + £105,000 from variation shares at £8.84. So the above input from late November means approx 3 months of cash at £1.4m assuming £0 cash remaining at end of November so has funds well into March not until the end of January as Hamilton disingeneously suggests.

Plus the JPM conference next week.

Just bumping this up - got a few posters who don't want the casual reader to read this thread.

I see, now picking on Ssccss. He has described his reasoning but any inability to comprehend is not his problem, as it was quite clear to me (and most people).

ASI - as am I also interested in seeing the detail which is why I vote no - if anything it buys time and allows a greater weight of information from the BoD about the current plan, vs also waiting for the shareholder rescue plan. what grabbed me was the actual transparancy and adherence to governance as well as a possible way out of this mess that PPP has been in for the past year (nothing done with the Texas assets - not even an attempted raise "to fund texas licenses" given as a reason? Nope. nada.)

What question was directed at me? I haven't commented on that thread as NU was talking to Ssccss.

you may need to go and see someone and hearing voices and seeing things are not good. I recommend your GP as the first step and if that's difficult then 111.

ASI - yes that takes time. So far we are at the stage of member statement shared also for feedback. We have been told the formal process is being built and the market will be formally informed as and when ready. So I guess nothing to do but wait.

Ssccss - don't use NUs thread. just ignore them. What's great about all this is if there is an FCA investigation, those supporting and calling for action and trying to hold the BoD to account will win (that's how it works in audit, compliance, and so on including from regulatory findings) compared to those who have created such threads in order to sow distrust and confusion. This is why TG is so powerful, as this sort of rubbish is not tolerated and the user acn be muted by an admin (hasn't happened for a loooong time though). It's fun. It's like adults being able to talk without children shouting about irrelvancies.

Ah i think you are misunderstanding. There are two things. EGM for removal of Lunn (explained below) and currently plan is currently a member statement and more details we expect will be put forth once the outcome of the GM is known (if PPP win that then it doesnt matter as the EGM would be voted down). At least that's what I assume.

The EGM that Lunn refused went all the way to court. As the AGM was occuring on the 7th the judge indicated that he expects that meeting to happen (in a view that the one in March 2025 was adjourned, never to happen again). So for me Lunn was trapped he had to hold that meeting even if he had to stand down.

And then what happened? He appoints RMD Directors, and then one to CEO and then to Chairman, where they still haven't been elected at an AGM and should have retired at the end of the 7th November. You can chat gpt that if you want - but you need to define the order in which things happened. But the Companies Act is clear - especially so as the co had two elected directors by the end of the AGM (Menzel and Rapp).

Best raise your game then ASI! GL

It was posted on here by RS_P wherever they've gone, and it was posted in the TG group on Wednesday. it was then fully deleted from here.

Suffice to say another set of interested parties brokered by a significant shareholder with £500k+ of investment are willing to come in, with a gold and copper project in Australia, and will also investgate objectively what is happening with the Texas assets, and, in time, hopefully bring them back online.

No RTO needed.

It got a 90% approval rating from the group.

Thanks to chatgpt I think what froggy intended to write was:

Many people appear to be supporting a “yes” vote without fully understanding the implications of what is being proposed. This is difficult to understand and deeply concerning.

There is a real risk that existing shareholders could face significant dilution, especially if the benefits to the company are minimal. Past experience with previous boards has already caused considerable loss and disappointment, and there is understandable reluctance to see a similar situation repeated.

Those advocating a “yes” vote may believe it is in the company’s best interests, but others feel that they have been misled before and fear that this decision could lead to long-term financial harm. If things go wrong, it will be ordinary investors who spend years trying to recover their money.

There are also concerns about the continued influence of individuals associated with previous management and whether genuine change will actually take place. Transparency, accountability, and clear leadership are essential if trust is to be restored.

This decision should not be taken lightly. A united approach that protects all shareholders offers a better chance of rebuilding value and stability.

I wish all genuine shareholders a happy Christmas and New Year, and I hope that everyone carefully considers the consequences before casting their vote.

:D:D:D