4d Pharma Share Discussion Threads

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 20:57

Nigel, who knows what type of working environment 4D has but its not unusual to see it evident across all listed companies large and small buddy.

[nigelpm] 26/6/2022 20:40

OF - but for a business of this size that would be highly unusual. <100 employees - you just won't get those corporate situations - this feels like incompetence bordering on fraud - we shall see.

[melegramforttongo] 26/6/2022 20:31

Hahahahaha

The curse of Skeppy strikes yet again .

LOOOOOOOOSERS

LOOOOOOOOOSERS

LOOOOOOOOOOSERS

😂😂&#128514;😂8514;😂ԅ14;

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 20:28

YasX, I'm sure you've worked in a corporate environment so you'll understand how completely disjointed the integral parts of a business are...And I was a contractor as a Data Architect at several and the amount of digging or company employees passing the buck was truly astonishing!

...And absolutely, one would have expected DP to be fully aware of the terms at the time but in all honestly i think he was just led to believe that the company's IP would forge a path ahead for 4Ds sustainability and that would provide ample opportunities for 4D to accommodate those terms at the preceding time via some financial initiative but having a nine month window since the agreement has been really quite reasonable for 4D to assume some company directive...

Unfortunately, management not only misjudged but miscalculated how accomodative OFs offerings were to 4D but also the unforgiving market conditions for a decent placing and I doubt DP even expected such lengthy delays from the FDA following the economy returning from covid...But I too am at a loss as to why he didn't ever consider a placing upon any of those data releases!

...Ultimately it all comes down to short-sightedness by management and unfortunate timing, I doubt you can really read anything more into this rather grave situation.

[amaretto1] 26/6/2022 19:49

Well we have a 6 month window suspension wise In the mean time DDDD is business as usual under our terms of administration.... occurring daily interest on the 13 million loan !!So this brings the question.... could we receive achievement payments from partners etc ...M518 etc Is Duncan privy to this outcome .. who knows ....

[vlad the impaler] 26/6/2022 19:34

You probably did ok tbf. But it doesn't change the fact

SYME, all aboardddd

You ought to know why lol

[vlad the impaler] 26/6/2022 19:34

Not quite. You have been on some of the worst 😂

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 19:28

That’s true Vlad. And SYME is the worst of the lot.

[yasx] 26/6/2022 19:23

OF,

Come on, he is not the only Director in the Co. and frankly, it is not a case of not understanding basic terms associated with the loan, and the difficult but necessary concomitant of raising at least 45M over the next few quarters.

Beck died before the loan was taken up, but I am not sure if he was on leave for a while with poor health. He might have been off for a while and Duncan might have taken the lead in arranging this loan - but, he would have known what he was getting into, of that i am certain.

It is odd that you suggest he took it up "rather than going through the arduous and expensive task of a public placing" - but given he needed to stump up a further 45M and much more for the year ahead within the next few quarters, surely he expected in any event to go through the arduous and strenuous task of a placing anyway. Where else was the cash going to come from? You can't say hundreds of millions would land from Merck or whatever since if Merck or any other partner were to give them tens of millions then they would not have gone to OF in the first place.

Duncan knowingly signed up to this deal with the full knowledge of the terms which clearly posed an existential threat to the Co. within a few quarters if he did not raise a substantial sum (relative to the loan itself) within a few months. He then advised holders in early April he had the expectation of raising enough cash when that now seems to have been well wide of the mark.

If he really believed the company had compelling IP, then he would not have tied it all up for the first tranche of 5-12M (given either 7M or the 45M had to be put up as part of the terms) - that is what he did by signing up to that deal and then doing nothing to raise funds by issuing equity at various points, such as when Keytruda was released.

I remain cynical. Something more to it I say....

[vlad the impaler] 26/6/2022 19:15

Casino? AIM is just a fraud factory for the most part

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 19:06

They did PATT but much of that was not only absorbed in the secondary listing on Nasdaq but their trials were also progressing to those latter stages...

And there most recent annual accounts clearly demonstrated a significant jump in their underlying costs YoY buddy.

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 19:00

One frankel. That does not add up. At 1/7/21 they had £20m in cash so money for 10 months. This loan only gave them $5m net for 8 months. £4m. Two months spending. It solved nothing and created utter destruction. I wonder if the auditors were not aware of the terms.

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 18:57

YasX, you have to understand that maybe Beck was already in the process of devising a financial strategy for the business going forward before his untimely demise...And with that lack of knowledge now missing from the organisation, maybe it was just simply short-sightedness of DP in agreeing to those unfavourable terms rather than going through the arduous and expensive task of a public placing...

He saw this as an easy opportunity for interim finance without really understanding the terms of the agreement especially when you believe the company had such compelling IP in future as he did and sometimes even they get lost in all the bluster of their visions...

We're all humans after all and not immune to making serious errors of judgement buddy!

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 18:55

The most likely possible targets for redress are the auditors. That is clearly a false statement of affairs.

[yasx] 26/6/2022 18:48

One F,

It might not be unreasonable, but it is unreasonable in that context to consider why Peyton would sign up to a deal offering 12.5 M which would require him to raise 45M to access the same.

Why not just raise the 45M and forget about the stringent loan. To take on that loan seems very unreasonable now given he has been unable to raise anything, less still the 45M.

When did he start looking for further funds? In late March he advised that he was confident of securing funds for the year ahead. Was that just a wild guess or had he engaged parties that had expressed a realistic interest to provide funds?

We don't know, but I am not convinced that he going concern statement on the 1st of April was reasonable.

[yasx] 26/6/2022 18:44

Purchase,

As I earlier mentioned, seems Peyton has not been entirely transparent. Make of it what you will.

Matters need to be looked into, perhaps at the request of those that have a vested interest in this Co. if they are sufficiently interested to do so.

[nigelpm] 26/6/2022 18:42

I agree YasX - something is up here. No doubt we'll find out shortly - not that it will help those who have lost money here - but that's the casino that AIM is.

[amaretto1] 26/6/2022 18:42

I do know .... thousands of private investors have lost a serious amount of money ...for now !!

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 18:42

4d raised just over £21M in 2014 and one would expect that its come a long way since then with its research programmes so Oxford Finance contract stipulations for raising £45M albeit in a nine month window is not in the slightest unfair or even unreasonable to 4D YasX!

...So it seems 4D management have just dithered around without having any real foresight for the future unfortunately!

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 18:39

Yasx. Page 54 of the accounts that were approved on 31/3/22 stated that there were no material items that had not been informed to the auditor.

Page 59 going concern the auditors make no reference to need to raise funds beyond operating requiements for the next 12 months.

It is just beyond belief. Perhaps nobody knew (or were told) about the terms.

[yasx] 26/6/2022 18:35

There is little that holders will be able to do- what they ought to do is refuse to invest in AIM shares, since light regulation allows all sorts of mischief and/or incompetence (I use the term loosely) to go unpunished. Nomads turn a blind eye to everything (just look at the spurious chinese listed stocks over the years, what due diligence was ever done on those)....

If retail holders don't back this guff, it will eventually have to introduce proper regulation to hold Directors accountable in the event of misfeasance.

My remarks are of a general nature, I make no specific allegation against the Board of 4d, although I am cynical about what has unfolded and why.

[amaretto1] 26/6/2022 18:33

This is how it looks .....Duncan put a lean on DDDD assets .. for a paltry sum of 13 million ! Was in cahoots with SO and OF to short down To a point the Company was in a defenceless position !! Then basically picking up the IP and platform for peanuts.....After 200 million was spent to get it to this stage !!! AIMO for now

[mark10101] 26/6/2022 18:33

I was not aware of this clause until recently but you put down my thoughts exactly when I read them. Crazy terms in that context.

[yasx] 26/6/2022 18:32

Purchase,

The going concern statement on April 1st is, with hindsight, misleading...

The Directors "have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to secure sufficient cash inflows into the Group to continue its activities for not less than twelve months from the date of approval of these accounts"

Given they had failed to secure $45M by that time, and needed much more fir the next year, if they had failed in their endeavours to raise 45M, and with the shares slipping did they really have a reasonable expectation of raising such a lofty sum.

Or was sit all utter nonsense as now appears to be the case?