Salvarx Share Discussion Threads

[jonesyboy 27] 21/8/2018 00:11

Dear me you don’t give up do you with your nonsense. Keep an eye out tomorrow and I’ll tell you the exact % positions of Mellon and Bailey both pre and post Portage.
Not your long winded opinion on what individual minority holders may or may not do. They will vote on the evidence presented to them by the independent company that has been asked to do this, they will also be guided by larger stakeholders such as Mellon and Bailey.
Somehow I have a feeling that virtually all will look at what the company did with Biohaven (turning $7 million initial investment into $210 million in special dividend Biohaven shares) when making their decisions.

What would you do faced with those facts?

[sweet karolina] 20/8/2018 22:27

Jonesy,

Tackle the ball not the man in your next post and you might contribute something of value to the discussion. You said previously the Portage vote was a done deal because Mellon et al were majority shareholders. Individually they are minority shareholders of both companies and there was a question as to whether they could vote in the Portage minority shareholders vote, required by Canadian Securities Law. It has now been established, through research backed up by a posted link, that as interested parties they cannot take part in the vote and therefore it is not the foregone conclusion you claimed it was. Following that you have done nothing to back up your opinion that it is still "nailed on to go through". In order to do that you need to consider dispassionately what Portage minority, disinterested shareholders are likely to do. Some undoubtedly will blindly do as they are told. Some however will be less than impressed by their directors massively diluting them and radically altering the shareholder register by paying "Consideration Shares valued at approximately US$75.8 million, representing a premium of over 250% to the current market valuation of SalvaRx" (Top Highlight point of SALV's RNS). You also need to consider what impact a proportion of the minority shareholders', who do vote against but do not win the vote, shares hitting a relatively illiquid market as soon as the halt is lifted would have.

All I have done is stimulate discussion, backed up with some analogies and some data, on the various key issues, like the Portage minority disinterested shareholders perspective, which should inform investing decisions in this instance. I have repeatedly pointed out that everyone needs to make their own depending on their own circumstances and position. I have not criticised anyone who has declared what their decision is, nor have I sought to alter them - they are all perfectly reasonable. Indeed an understanding of what a variety of people feel is much more useful in trying to judge how the market as a whole may react than a single entrenched, but unsupported view.

[jonesyboy 27] 20/8/2018 20:55

I’ll make the position we find ourselves in clear in my next post

[jonesyboy 27] 20/8/2018 20:30

Karolina has made her position clear. She does not hold and has no intention of buying yet is on here constantly telling us for example that Mellon and Bailey aren’t the majority shareholders in Salv. You can either put 2&2 together and work out her motive or you cannot.
If you get the answer 3 then sell, if you can’t do the sum then sell.

[kristini2] 20/8/2018 17:56

Jones- you or someone mentioned Mr Munger

If someone was countering an investor of a position he held as sweet is here, i think he would maybe take on board and reflect on the counter argument, maybe reject such arguments but not get in to an argument; sweet is entitled to her opinion, t his is a debating forum

we know not what Sweets position or agenda is but does that matter ?

It is human nature to look for arguments that enforce our belief in our positions, but it is the top investors that are able to take a balanced view and listen to both sides

The position here is highly speculative as to how it goes either way, such is the nature of early stage biotech....

[sweet karolina] 20/8/2018 14:43

Portage looks to be fairly thinly traded - perhaps about $10k per day on average?



It certainly would not take many disgruntled with the deal shareholders to sell to drive it to 5c or below.

It will be interesting to see how many shares are voted against the deal, as that would give some indication of how many might hit the market on resumption of trading, assuming the deal does get through.

[dexdringle] 20/8/2018 14:27

Hmmmm. It all feels a bit 'pie in the sky'. Massive share issue from Portage to then do a share exchange. They are paying a massive premium (on the face of it) presumably because that is the only way that SALV shareholders will even entertain accepting an exchange for foreign penny shares. If it was an established pharma buying it they'd be:

a) paying cash
b) paying nothing like the proposed figure

Portage shares will probably re-open at US$0.05 each thus halving the value of the bid.

Am holding (for now) - but only because I don't have such a large holding that a fall back to 30p is not an issue for me.

[sweet karolina] 20/8/2018 13:55

It is interesting how different people, depending on their own position, can have very different views on valuation.

I remember the QPP / SGH debacle. SGH claimed to have done the most extensive DD ever, a bunch of mug Aussies believed them (now suing in a class action). There were some QPP shareholders who voted against the deal, believing SGH were robbing them. There were others who bought SGH believing SGH were getting a bargain.


UKOG with a Market Cap of over £100M (at just under 2p) has just bought more of HHDL which gives their stake an implied valuation of 0.3p per share and there are people holding and buying believing UKOG should rise to 3p on the news and blaming MM tricks as to why not.


Early stage Biotechs are far more difficult to value than just about anything else. Jim Mellon did a similar related party transaction taking AIM listed Plethora (Premature ejaculation spray) into HKSE listed Regent Pacific. That might be a more useful analogy than QPP/SGH or UKOG.

[jonesyboy 27] 20/8/2018 13:23

Nailed on to go through

[sweet karolina] 20/8/2018 13:23

dex,

That is a strong possibility. Pharmaventures produced a range of valuations, using a variety of techniques (obviously NAV P/E etc do not apply). It will be interesting to see those when Portage produce the circular to non interested shareholders. We already know what the AIM market was valuing it at before the deal was announced (leaked).

[dexdringle] 20/8/2018 12:48

….I can see this all falling over and being called off......

[jonesyboy 27] 20/8/2018 12:27

It’s not hard to understand this the minority SH will have to vote on the deal using the independent valuation provided by pharmaventures on July 23rd.

[sweet karolina] 20/8/2018 11:46

My reading of this is NO! Portage related party directors cannot vote:



"approval of disinterested security holders (i.e. the “majority of the minority” vote);"


Everyone needs to form their own opinion on what way disinterested holders might vote and what the impact of a no vote would be and what those who voted no and were out voted would do with their shares (ie will they vote with their feet when then can) and what would be the impact of that both before completion of the deal and after.

The beauty of being impartial is I can look at it from SALV and Portage PI perspectives. I have given my views on what I would do, but everyone has their own way of looking at things and will act on the basis of their own situation. Ultimately you need to think about what the overall market will do not just what you would do.

[sweet karolina] 20/8/2018 07:20

Back to personal attacks always a sure sign that people have something to hide.

Can the related party directors of Portage vote their shares or not. A simple enough question which nobody wants to answer.

[bscuit] 19/8/2018 20:56

Having looked at Maple v Schneider I get the impression both were Canadian domiciled, which isn't the case here and this would involve expensive cross-border problems.. I suspect that as long as NED has no shares his view would be the defining factor from UK Courts/authorities perspective.

Tax treatment is going to be defining factor for me.

[jonesyboy 27] 19/8/2018 19:23

I’ve just answered your question that you’ve asked again...you’ll be saying Mellon and Bailey aren’t the majority shareholders in both again. This is a hard fact that you still haven’t acknowledged.
Yes I’ve read about a lot about minority shareholder protections in Canada. Maple Leaves Foods v Schneider Corp 1998 a classic example.
You should maybe concentrate on shares you are actually invested in rather than something you’ve had a glance at...

[sweet karolina] 19/8/2018 18:11

What evidence is there to support the 250% uplift?

The market price of SALV before the deal was announced. That is fact not opinion.

Most discussion is the discussion of ideas and opinions. You are stating your opinions which are clearly not based on the known facts. You deem to be averse to people expressing opinions that do not accord with your own and you seem averse to doing the research required into Canadian Securities law so you have some hard facts. You also seem to want to duck the key issue that a fantastic deal (5 x Market value) for one party is going to look fairly horrible from the other end of the telescope no matter how you try to dress it up.

[jonesyboy 27] 19/8/2018 17:49

Opinion not fact Karolina once more, lot of words with nothing factual within it.

Let’s look at the value of Salv that Portage SH are being asked to vote on. What evidence is there to support the 250% uplift?

Series B post raise valuation of Intensity is the key here.

Series A funding carries all the risk but also more of the equity. Series B funding the risk is massively greatly reduced, institutional investors come on board willing to partake.
Series B funding is not like a standard placing, the equity on offer is greatly reduced. For example company X raises £5 million series A, goes well they raise Series B funding at £10 million for 33% of the equity.
Post raise valuation in the above example would be £30 million.

[sweet karolina] 19/8/2018 17:13

Jonesy,

Bscuit asked me directly a very pertinent question.

"Mellon and Bailey have conflict of interest problems and might not be able to vote their shares. SK thoughts?"

I answered it as best I was able - Canadian law = don't know, UK = yes I believe they can.

I had hoped someone would research Canadian securities law and provide a clear answer. I am most certainly not doing it for you on a Sunday when I have no SALV shares and no intention of buying any.

You gave an entirely false answer - it was a done deal. You have at least admitted that was untrue. Whilst your new argument has some merit, it does not answer the original question and is highly debateable. Personally, if I were a Portage shareholder, who had done research into SALV during the trading halt period, I would vote against the deal. Why am I being massively diluted in a related party transaction, which is paying about 5 times market price for a subsidiary of an AIM listed company that got a going concern emphasis of matter in its last accounts. If the deal was passed by other minority shareholders, I would be selling my Portage shares as soon as I could and as close to 10c as I could, regardless of what I had done with the Biohaven shares I got 7 months before. There will be Portage minor shareholders that feel this way and those that do not, it takes both opinions to make a market.

[bscuit] 19/8/2018 17:12

I trust you don't include me in "most"! I have done some procedural research. I intend to contact SALV tomorrow to investigate how the consideration will be resolved

[fig1] 19/8/2018 17:03

Ron Wayne, one of the original founders of Apple, sold his shares for $800 in 1976. If he had held on, today they would be worth $35 billion.

[jonesyboy 27] 19/8/2018 16:59

SK balanced is she really lol? Doesn’t hold and has already told the BB that Mellon etc aren’t majority holders in Salv and Portage which is untrue.

Research appears beyond most on here...most preferring to trust opinion ( from a non-holder) rather than fact.

Kristini the nonsense you write on another board I’m on leads me not to value your opinion either.

[kristini2] 19/8/2018 16:50

SK comes across very balanced to me, Jones you on the other hand come across tetchy and defensive, i'm not sure why.

SK is right, biohaven shows a good track record in management judgment and is now a non factor here, there's a huge amount of luck involved in early stage biotec as you know