Cyprotex Share Discussion Threads

[indi123] 01/4/2016 23:55

No need to answer, just seen the following in the results statement :

"...Trident is managed by Harwood Capital LLP ('Harwood'). Harwood also manages Oryx International Growth Fund Limited ('Oryx') and other private client funds which together with Trident collectively own 29.8% of the issued ordinary share capital of the Company. Christopher Mills, a non-executive director of the Company, is the Chief Investment Officer of Harwood Capital LLP and is the 100% owner of Harwood Capital Management Limited, a designated member of Harwood Capital LLP. If all Convertible Loan Note holders were able to convert on 31 December 2015, then in theory Trident, Oryx and other private client funds managed by Harwood combined would have owned 36.12% of the issued share capital of the Company. If all Convertible Loan Note holders convert to equity on 30 September 2018, Trident, Oryx and other private client funds managed by Harwood combined at that date would own 36.84% of the issued share capital of the Company...."

[indi123] 01/4/2016 23:43

Any views on the late RNS this afternoon re:Harwood Capital LLP Form 8.3 - Cyprotex Plc ? Is it of any significance - have Oryx increased their holdings ?

[buywell2] 01/4/2016 20:29

Well done Cyprotex ... You did even better than I was hoping for :-




............. Stellar Final Results today from Cyprotex ..................

Financial Highlights

-- Strong revenue growth up 34.9% to GBP15.61 million (2014: GBP11.57 million)
-- Gross margins increased to 77.3% (2014: 75.0%)

-- Operating profit of GBP1.98 million, (2014: Operating loss, excluding goodwill impairment, of GBP0.71 million)

-- Underlying EBITDA^ of GBP3.40 million (2014: GBP0.61 million)
-- Cash generated from operations of GBP3.48 million (2014: used in operations GBP1.32 million)

-- Underlying basic earnings^^ per share of 6.94 pence (2014: loss 19.67 pence)
-- Cash of GBP5.4 million as at 31 December 2015 (2014: GBP2.9 million)

[buywell2] 01/4/2016 19:58

bahiflyer

Welcome to the thread

Thank-you for your views and I hope to see you posting some more along with some other advfn newbes that might get attracted as things hot up.

Regarding the AGM

Section 656 of the Companies Act 2006 requires a public limited company whose net assets have fallen to half or less than half the amount of its called up share capital to call a general meeting to consider whether any, and if so what, steps should be taken to deal with the situation.


That big spike to 130p plus forced the AGM call


However re the loan note debate and it is something that has got lots of folks panties in a bunch , has for some time , and must be very uncomfortable by now.


The crux of the matter as I see it , keeping it simples , is ...





The value of the embedded derivatives(loan notes) is linked to the company's share price.

It may increase or decrease in line with share price movements until 30 September 2018 and is ultimately dependent on the share price of the company in the 30 days preceding 30 September 2018.

[bahiflyer] 01/4/2016 19:26

The loan notes do cloud the issue somewhat and I can understand why people would rather have them out the way for clarity.
But unless you particularly need to see a short term share price increase then there are some accounting advantages to keeping them in place and not just for future tax losses.

The company assumes that both redeemable and convertible notes will be redeemed for cash and therefore the derivative which is taken as a finance cost is the total number of notes multiplied by the increase in share price from 60p. This makes up the increase finance cost mostly of the £8.5M, which is accounted for as a loss.

Two things about that apart from carrying future tax losses.
Firstly all current operational profit is offset by the loss so remains with the company, building a reasonable bank cash balance for which we gain interest. Its like we're building up cash to eventually pay off the redeemables and its being partly funded by the tax man because all profits remain with the company.

Secondly I would expect the majority of CLNs will be converted for shares, not redeemed for cash. But we are assuming all loans will be redeemed for cash in the accounts yet most of that cash element will never leave the company if CLNs are converted into shares at maturity.
Its quite clever really and not too easy to get your head around, or to explain for that matter.

[rrb] 01/4/2016 12:31

What are the chances that the review is to identify ways to restructure the debt or pay it off early? Equity dilution short term but big upside longer term?

[p1nkfish] 01/4/2016 10:11

The outcome will be decided by the big boys. Be under no illusion Trident, Oryx, Sneller, Hargreaves Hale & Koch will decides. Also not to forget some of those hold CLNS also. Between them they are >50% and none are stupid and would expect them all to have some CLNS. Talk of it being to benefit of all stakeholders basically means them with the rest on their coat tails.

This should come out well for us PIs but best for the CLN holders.

A valuation without the CLN hangover would be much easier.

In some respects it's a shame as this is such a little beauty of a company, a real gem. Would have been good to see it flourish independently.

[rrb] 01/4/2016 09:39

The CLNs are still a liability. I agree they may be in reality somewhat of a red herring given the potential for future tax right-offs.

Average valuations in this sector are 4-5 x sales. CRX is valued at 1.5 x sales. The upside is massive as we all know. If there was any sort of takeover, the premium would have to be rather large. I'd sell at 400p!

[battlebus2] 01/4/2016 09:14

Thanks to Mike I've bought a few.

[p1nkfish] 01/4/2016 08:28

bahiflyer, I couldn't agree more. The forward look is likely to be very impressive and a shame if this goes cheap. Perhaps they might split a section off? My target was £50M+ market cap.

This would be a cash machine.

[mikeh30] 01/4/2016 08:26

Bought some yesterday. Looking goos

[bahiflyer] 01/4/2016 08:13

Not sure the significance of these announcements has actually dawned on the market fully. Clearly there have been tentative approaches and who can be surprised looking at the implications of the final qtr trading.

The CLNs are a red herring and dont actually do anything at this time except to benefit the company with future tax losses thanks to the accounting policy of the derivatives.
I would prefer to think they could get all holders to convert and improve liquidity.

Based on final qtr trading and assuming those levels remain a conservative estimate of operational profit for this year would be £5M+.

Cash generation has been impressive too. Be sorry if we do get sold too early or too cheaply.

[rrb] 01/4/2016 07:23

I've always said, those loan notes are strangling the company. Strategic review could be the beginning of restructuring them. £15.6m in revenues and gross margin of 77% should equate to a share price 3 x current levels.

[buywell3] 31/3/2016 17:55

That is what we have a BOD for ... to give us an outlook

The Finals should give some direction

I like and hope North is what we get .... and all Cyprotex Investors will be in the pink.

The recent surge in work leading to the raised turnover/profits now expected for 2015, (finals in a fortnight I think ), seems to indicate the outlook is both rosy and north for 2016.

[p1nkfish] 31/3/2016 17:41

Hard to know what the top end could be here with the CLNS acting as a drag but so much business potential. How would anyone forecast this?

[p1nkfish] 31/3/2016 17:39

Today's 3D Liver news is very positive and another reason not to use analysis testing as this test is likely to be more accurate.

CRX becoming a linch-pin in this whole test matrix.

They deserve to be successful, results will be interesting as already said to exceed market expectations, what forward look now?

[buywell3] 31/3/2016 17:29

This link gives the list of companies that have active contracts with the USA Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA )

By : Active Contracts by Vendor Name as of 2/23/2016

And : Last Refresh Date: 2/23/16 11:55:19 AM GMT-05:00



Page 21 shows that Cyprotex US, LLC has 2 active contracts with the EPA

The Hurel Corporation to date has none see page 38


It is therefore to be hoped that Cyprotex will clean up BIGTIME

[buywell3] 31/3/2016 16:47

I am pleased to see that Cyprotex are now a specialist ADME-Tox and BioScience Contract Research Organization (CRO) as the late arriving RNS today says.

The growth of the new BioSciences Division is important V the march of personalized medicine


3D assays using human cells are the way to go


The EPA seems to like them from what I have read , so perhaps some more work from that direction.


The Hurel Corporation is also in the same game


Perhaps Cyprotex can beat them on price and/or delivery ?

Don't forget Cyprotex still has a Toxicology contract with the EPA ToxCast program with around $10M to still be spent by 2018



It is good to see Cyprotex keeping ahead of the CRO pack in its innovative use of new technology , together with the employment of creative and knowledgeable staff that put such technology to best use for the industries that Cyprotex services.

The recent drift in Share Price should I feel be clawed back when the finals get released.

The EPA sure has a lot of Toxicology testing to arrange

The recent successful legal challenges made by companies previously granted 'Conditional Approval' by the EPA and then subsequently unsuccessfully withdrawn by the EPA after such chemicals had been found to cause harm to various crustaceans,other water life and invertebrates: were made based upon 'computational modelled programs ' for toxicological data outcomes.

It would seem that the EPA will have to add 3D In-Vitro Toxicology assays to the In-Silico predictive data in order to win a court judgement.









Cyprotex PLC Launch of Advanced 3D Liver Model

31/03/2016 9:58am

Launch of Advanced 3D Liver Model

Cyprotex PLC (AIM:CRX; www.cyprotex.com), a specialist ADME-Tox and Bioscience Contract Research Organisation (CRO), today announces the launch of an advanced 3D liver model for detecting hepatotoxic potential.

Hepatotoxicity is a major cause of drug attrition and preclinical animal studies often fail to detect this type of drug-induced toxicity. As a result, in some cases, hepatotoxic liability is only detected at a late stage when the drug has reached the clinic. In vitro-based human cellular models are showing promise as alternatives to animal based testing and are able to provide a mechanistic understanding of hepatotoxicity. These cellular models may be performed in either 2D (e.g., cell suspensions or monolayers attached to the bottom of plates) or 3D (e.g., scaffold/support-based or scaffold-free microtissues/spheroids) format. 3D models have advantages over 2D cellular models in the fact that they have improved cell to cell contact and communication, and are amenable to longer term cultures enabling extended repeat dose studies to be replicated. Furthermore, functional drug metabolising activity is observed within the 3D microtissues over extended time periods which may be important for drugs exerting their adverse effects through the formation of a toxic metabolite in the liver.

Cyprotex has specialist expertise in 3D cellular research and has developed various organ specific models (such as liver, heart, brain and kidney models) and co-culture models (where more than one cell type is incorporated in the model). Through Cyprotex's investment in confocal high content analysis equipment for imaging, a detailed analysis of the 3D cellular structures can be performed. Cyprotex's new 3D hepatotoxicity model analyses multiple high content endpoints enabling an accurate prediction of the likelihood of liver toxicity in humans, and allowing the mechanism behind the hepatotoxicity to be explored in detail.

Dr Anthony Baxter, Cyprotex's Chief Executive Officer, comments on the introduction of the new 3D technology: "Developing 3D cell-based models has been a key focus of our research during the past 12 months. Not only are these models proving valuable for toxicology testing but they are also showing promise in efficacy and ADME testing, and are being used within a number of different industries. For example, in vitro reconstructed 3D skin models are now the standard technique within the cosmetics market for testing skin and ocular irritation and corrosion. Although 2D models are currently the preferred choice for testing new pharmaceuticals, this is expected to change as the potential of 3D technology is realised."

[buywell2] 27/3/2016 10:41

........... The Cyprotex Group and The Source BioScience Group..........

Both of these companies state that they are committed to ''increasing value for shareholders''

page 18
Commitment to increase shareholder value


Both of these companies operate in the Pharma Biotech sector, both have considerable presence in the UK and also in the USA (where SBS wants to become the leading DNA Sequencing provider : see their finals extract to follow)

DNA Sequencing and Genomic Services

''The DNA Sequencing and Genomic Services business provides ultra-fast DNA sequencing services delivered by the Group's international network of laboratories and distributors to academic research groups, biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Source BioScience's ambition is to become the leading commercial provider of DNA sequencing in the UK and the USA.

The Group's ultra-fast service, with data delivery times of less than ten hours, and international laboratory network continues to power the growth of this business. Over 1 million customer samples for DNA sequencing were analysed during the year, an increase of 15% compared with the prior year. In 2015 the DNA sequencing service was launched from the Group's facilities in Atlanta for customers in the south east of the USA.''







Both of these companies state that they are committed to ''increasing value for shareholders''

From last weeks SouceBioScience Finals results

Outlook

''We believe that the Group has a very strong business model and opportunities for further growth are apparent across the Laboratory Services and Products divisions.

The Board's strategy is to expand the service and product offering, enabling greater market penetration, with the objective of delivering increasing value for shareholders.

The aim is to achieve this through continued organic growth from the enlarged infrastructure in addition to further, carefully selected acquisitions when the opportunities arise, building on the strong foundations now established in the business.''



The top two Institutions of The SourceBioScience Group are :


Harwood Capital ............... 29.4%
Henderson Global Investors .... 5.0% (in the form of Alphagen Volantis notes)

The same two Institutions own shares in The Source BioScience Group

Harwood Capital ............... 23.5%
Henderson Global Investors .... 20.0%





I put it to the above companies and Institutional funds that to deliver increased shareholder value for both companies the following should be undertaken .


Cyprotex and Source BioScience should enter into a 50/50 strategic partnering deal.


The objective would be increase turnover in both companies.

1. By utilizing cross selling each others services to each others clients.

2. By the utilization/expansion of existing Cyprotex Lab space in both Kalamazoo and in Watertown Labs so as to provide DNA Ultra Fast Sequencing Services from both Locations.
Remember SBS offer a ultra fast service that is 10 hours for delivery of data ... thus further USA Geographical locations are going to be needed.


3. By the provision of a cold storage facility in both Labs

Number 2 could be undertaken on a 50/50% basis for an agreed period , say 3 to 5 years

Number 3. could follow on if 1. and 2. proved to be fruitful

Cyprotex has recently created a new BioSciences Division , it is growing and offers complementary assays in areas where SourceBioScience has none.

Cyprotex has a massive range of ADME Tox assays where SourceBioScience has next to none having all but exited that growth market some 3 years ago.




I believe that a shred 50/50% deal would increase the shareholder value in the following ways



a) On the day/s of the announcements the share prices of both companies should rise by around 10% ( this makes the raising of further funds for new acquisitions better for existing shareholders - less dilutive affect )

b) It is not unrealistic to assume the turnover of both companies on a shared basis - equal input/work/selling - would rise 5% in the first year due to such a deal , and then grow another 5% over the next 2 further years.

If number 3. above was then implemented in a similar fashion(after year.3 , with the creation of diagnostic testing services from USA Cyprotex Labs , then another 5% to 10% could be added over the following 3 years.


All of the above and more could be written in as part of the strategic partnership deal - investors would like it as it makes sense and increases market reach/penetration for both at a minimum cost with an agreed split of monies 50/50%.

It's a win/win ..... please make it happen

[buywell2] 21/3/2016 12:42

The numbers of jobs recently and some new ones , advertised in Cyprotex Watertown Labs in Boston USA add up when one reads the last 2 days of posts.


Current Positions



Head of Project Management - Macclesfield, UK


Associate Director ADME – Watertown, MA


Technician - Watertown, MA


Associate Scientist - Watertown, MA


Senior Scientist/Study Manager; in vitro Toxicology and Biological Screening - Watertown, MA


Associate Scientist I (in vitro Toxicology) - Alderley Park, UK


Senior Scientist-DMPK - Watertown, MA


Associate Scientist I/II (Analytical ADME) - Macclesfield, UK


Scientist/Senior Scientist (Drug Metabolism) dependent on experience - Macclesfield, UK


Principal Scientist (Project Manager) - Macclesfield, UK



Plus the USA duplication of robotic screening equipment, additional mass specs plus other equipment needed to duplicate what the UK lab at Macclesfield can do ..... all now done , up and running.

Cyprotex launches new high throughput laboratory in its US facility


March 31st 2015



Cyprotex launches new high throughput laboratory in its US facility

31st March, 2015; Cyprotex PLC (AIM:CRX), a specialist ADME-Tox Contract Research Organisation (CRO), announced today the launch of a new high throughput screening laboratory at its US facility in Watertown near Boston. The laboratory replicates the highly successful ADME screening laboratory in Cyprotex’s UK facility which has been developed in-house over the past 16 years using the combined expertise of our skilled software engineers and scientists. The unique platform allows Cyprotex to provide services which generate high quality consistent data in a rapid and cost-effective manner. All our customers, large and small, have access to and can benefit from the services available in North America.

The new facility houses state of the art automated liquid handling instruments and LC-MS/MS analytical instruments as well as a team of scientists and software engineers who are experienced in the field of high throughput screening. The integration has been led by our UK team who have been responsible for training staff and managing the smooth transfer of existing procedures and cross validation of the assays.

Dr Anthony Baxter, Cyprotex’s Chief Executive Officer, comments: “Expansion of our high throughput screening facility to the US has always been a much desired part of our growth strategy plans. Our unique software platform combined with state of the art automation and bioanalytical capabilities make us one of the only contract research facilities to be able to screen such large numbers of compounds in such a wide range of assays with relative ease. The medium and large Pharmaceutical companies who require high capacity and high quality screening with short turnaround times are realising the benefit of working with Cyprotex and as such the number of strategic deals are increasing and are a key factor in the growth of our business.”





The EPA contract that Cyprotex has runs till 2018


I think Cyprotex management should start to look at running both labs on a 24 hrs basis with night shifts and weekend rosta implimentation

The workload is set to ramp up

Cyprotex will have to make hay on their contract or someone else will pick up the slack







Cyprotex (COTXF.PK) - Contract With U.S. EPA

5/1/2013 10:57:52 AM


1 May 2013 - Cyprotex PLC (AIM: CRX), the specialist preclinical contract research organisation today announces that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded the Company the contract to obtain contractor services in support of the EPA’s ongoing ToxCast Project relating to the Prioritization of Environmentally Relevant Chemicals.

Cyprotex will be providing High Content Imaging Bioassay Analysis of the ToxCast Compound Library.

The contract commenced on 25 April 2013 and runs for a period of five years.

[buywell2] 21/3/2016 12:30

1,800 chemical compounds out of the 80,000 plus ( another 1,000 added every year ) were tested by Dec 2015

So when the info was posted below in Dec 2015 ..... that would leave about 78,500 left to still test















ToxCast™ publish CellCiphr® research on the prediction of cellular damage and repair


High Content Screening in HepG2 Cells

Posted 16th December 2015 by Cyprotex



ToxCast™ is a research initiative launched in 2007 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to screen compounds and gain insight into their toxicological profiles. To date, more than 1800 chemicals have been assessed in high-throughput assays and the data catalogued and released to the public. Cyprotex’s US laboratory in Watertown, MA (previously named Apredica) have contributed to the High Content Imaging (HCI) research for the ToxCastTM project.

The US EPA recently published the results of this study with Apredica, which used Cyprotex’s HCI platform, CellCipr®, to elucidate cell damage caused by chemicals and at which point (either through concentration or exposure time) cells would no longer recover from the damage sustained. The study assessed phenotypic changes of 11 endpoints caused by 967 chemicals at a range of concentrations (up to 200 µM) over a 72 hour exposure period in HepG2 cells.

The endpoints included p53, c-Jun, phospho-histone H3, alpha tubulin, mitochondrial membrane potential, mitochondrial mass, cell cycle arrest, nuclear size and cell number.

To better understand the toxic properties of these test articles, the rate at which cells reached damage beyond repair, or a “tipping point”, was quantified. Unsurprisingly, compound concentration played a direct role in the speed with which this tipping point was reached.

The results broke out quite neatly, with about one-third each showing either irreparable damage, resilience or need for further analysis.

However, there are some notable limitations to this study. First, HepG2 cells are not hepatocytes and as such, behave differently, in part because of their relatively lower metabolic activity.

Furthermore, because this study was performed in a 2D monoculture, some of the nuances expressed in a multi cell-type organ may not have been expressed. Additionally, only two time points where examined – 24 and 72-hour. While a little more than one-third of the compounds reached or surpassed the phenotypic tipping point at 72 hours, one-third did not.

A subset of the cells that showed recovery capabilities (that is, repairable damage) had not fully recovered by 72 hours. It remains unknown whether recovery would have continued beyond that or maximum, though incomplete, restoration was achieved.

Despite these limitations, the findings demonstrate the utility of High Content Imaging for detection of toxicological response and providing an insight into adaptation and resilience of in vitro cellular systems based on tipping point analysis. It is proposed that this technique has the potential for defining risk-based prioritisation of chemicals.

[buywell2] 21/3/2016 12:14

The link above is from the EPA watchdog , the OIG






US EPA watchdog to review agency’s chemical risk management


23 February 2016 / United States

The US EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) proposes to investigate the agency’s capability to deal with the “challenges in managing chemical risks”.

Its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) “limits the EPA’s effectiveness”, says a report by the OIG. “Chemicals manufactured before 1976 were not required to develop and produce data on toxicity and exposure, which are needed to properly and full assess potential risks,” it says.

More than 80,000 chemicals are currently listed, or registered for use, under authority granted by the agency, and a thousand more are introduced every year.

In June, the OIG will start a review to “assess critical questions, regarding the EPA’s investment to address this management challenge”, the report says, listing the office's priorities for FY 2016.

The review will also look at the agency’s effectiveness in incorporating tools, like dashboards and ToxCast, in meeting its ”priority setting, toxicity testing and risk assessment needs”.

The OIG is also investigating whether an antimicrobial testing programme ensures the efficacy of EPA registered hospital sterilants, disinfectants and tuberculocides.

[buywell2] 21/3/2016 12:11

This is worth a read