Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[gooosed] 04/4/2019 14:49

ONW - yes, without trials we will never know & without funding there ain't no trials. Compounds without human trial data attract funding via animal data & peer reviewed recognition . . . that Scancell do have for Moditope. So what gives, in relation to Chiplin's US foray. Frustration barely covers it - especially as all concerned received salary enhancements out of all proportion to their efficacy.

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 14:46

ONW,
IMHO, if we have the holy grail, why was it that not one single entity that had access to the data room managed to table an offer ?... of any sorts, whether it be a buy out or some kind of royalty arrangement.
A BOD are duty bound to make details of any " reasonable " offer / approach, available to its shareholders, especially if the ramifications of not accepting an offer means that another cash raise / further dilution.
I appreciate its a grey area as to when the BOD are bound to alert the shareholders to an offer, but none the less, if the counter to the offer is dilution, then that does make their responsibility a lot more onerous.

IMHO, the risks of spending money on such an early platform with what is, very limited data, was too much for everyone that did their DD.

I think we still had a long way to go before anyone could get anywhere near mitigating the risks, and big pharma know it.

My point about selling something now, is that when we originally opened the data room, we only really had one platform, so any offer would need to meet the expectations of the BOD as a 100% trade sale/ take over, however, things have now changed and we have various platforms in development, which means that we could accept a smaller cash amount for ONE, so SCLP would still survive as a development company, but with sufficient capital to take Modi or SCIB1 to Phase III, if required.

Cash flow is king with any company, but especially one that doesn't, and wont for a considerable period, generate any income.
At some point, there has to be a pay back, and i think that time is fast approaching. They can only put their hands out for money so many times, and each time they do, investors will want a bigger and bigger discount, because they know that there will be yet another raise coming soon.

Sell something and become self financing and the share price will fly.

All IMHO.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 14:34

ONW, well according to the BOD " the results were better than expected " . 1) what were there expectations, perhaps they were not very high. 2) where would we be if the results were not as good as expected. If you cannot sell a product that provides compelling data and better than expected results then someone is not doing their job or is not telling the truth.

[gazza] 04/4/2019 14:34

The science isn't "best in class"?

[oldnotwise] 04/4/2019 13:49

Tosh
And the conclusion you draw from that is?
ATB

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 13:10

ONW,
I think the simple answer to that question lies with the fact that we issued 65 NDA's and not one of those 65, as of today, took any further action.

[oldnotwise] 04/4/2019 12:52

Gooosed
I think it's interesting that you used the term,
"potentially such good science".
Our science does look good, BUT if it is that good we should have been bought up a long time ago.
It seems to me we're heading towards a polarised position when we discuss Scancell.
1 On the one hand there's those who say that the Science is completely bulletproof,
2 On the other those who say if it is (bulletproof) why are the BOD fannying about and not getting us sold?

We are likely (at this share price level) to be struggling to raise funds so where is the truth?

Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle of 1 and 2.
Maybe the science is good (but not as "proven" as some would like to think) and it's pretty fair to say that the BOD (of all components) cannot claim to have "A" rated records in their time at SCLP (Presupposing the science really is Bulletproof).
If 1 is incorrect (ie the science is still open to question in the "Real World of Pharma) then the BOD cannot be blamed.
If the Science IS Bulletproof then the BOD derserve to be pulled apart limb by limb.
So I reckon the only one variable is the call on the science the BOD have proved their capabilities subject to the view of Science.
Now then, who's going to say that it (the science)can't fail?
Don't forget, if anyone does follow that line they're saying that the BOD are sufficiently incompetent as not to be able to sell the Holy Grail...
If the science isn't provable as being Bulletproof at this time, then I don't see how we can overly criticise the BOD (subject to my own views in my last post 21426).
AIMO
ATB

[gooosed] 04/4/2019 12:23

Imho - there was a change of strategy & that involved Chiplin, Lewis & Holloway - "multiple shots on goal", the "Brian" anecdote and the US office. There's the "monetize those assets in the near to short term" assertion from Holloway just over a year ago.

Biotime runs on a different timescale/dimension, I get that but when you compare & contrast the news/info management of for example Summit Therapeutics to the news/info (mis -imho) managemnet of this current first time CEO I do wonder why Holloway got the gig. He's probably a nice enough guy but why could potentially such good science not attract a more seasoned/accomplished captain of the ship ?

As far as selling a platform to provide funds - surely Glycans fits the bill. Holloway does have experience of that so perhaps that's a potential plus.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 12:19

Goy - been a while, how are you doing?


Super - I guess it would have been nice to run a neo-adjuvant trial and of course only LD can really answer that question but the SCIB1 trial was a mix of both resected and patients with tumour in situ. Having said that, ImmunoBody was never intended to treat late stage patients with bulky tumours, it was always intended to be in resected patients and so trial design seems to make sense.

If you go back to 2008/9 the landscape was completely different. There were no checkpoint inhibitors, no targeted immunotherapies - nothing other than chemo, surgery and wait. The trial was simply a small FIH phase I/IIa - it did the job. As far as I can see, the issue wasn't the trial design but the fact that it wasn't followed by a bigger, randomised study. I can understand why the advent of PD-1's has resulted in a focus on SCIB1 as a combination therapy but I would dearly loved to have seen progress in the adjuvant setting. It's disappointing that Scancell haven't been able to achieve this. Instead you now have patients being treated with the hugely expensive and toxic PD-1 and CTLA4 inhibitors following surgery.

[oldnotwise] 04/4/2019 12:00

I think FWIW that many (myself included) who follow the BBs were probably overenthused by the original share price trajectory (March 2012 - late 2012) which was supported by the original intention that the company would be sold by EOY 2013.
This did not happen, maybe simply because of no takers for immunobody or maybe because the company had become a different animal (IE multiplatformed.
The writing was on the wall by early 2013 for anyone who was prepared to use the power of reasoned individual thought.
Whilst it might still have been possible to split off Immunobody (retaining Moditope) I wonder whether there were any questions from potential buyers to SCLP BOD regarding overlaps or development intentions for the assets remaining in Scancell should Immunobody have been taken after the phase 2 results were released. I'm also aware that the timing for a sale of Immunobody did not come at the best of times in the tech cycle.
Also, I do believe the BOD was confident in 2012 (and particularly after the Phase 2 results) that they could sell Immunobody (and thus release SUBSTANTIAL funds for Moditope development). However when this didn't happen The outlook for the Company's share price had diminished considerably (and thus considerably reduced potential for fundraisings at attractive levels)..
Yes, some missed opportunities for sure, and it's damned frustrating (if not rather disturbing), but we are where we are, and I doubt there'd be any chance of making any legal point in suggesting that the BOD had lied. I'd rather put it that there were some miscalculations and some rather unfortunate timings both in terms of Market movement away from Vaccines and other financial requirements for R & D in the Company.
I'm still Hoping for something favourable, but however I look at it my confidence is lower than in 2012.
AIMO
ATB

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 11:57

Super,
exactly.
No one could have foreseen that we would be in the situation we are in now, 5 years ago, but we can now.
A realistic royalties package ( from my prospective ) is a far more attractive proposition than further fund raises and dilutions, with any meaningful revenues still quite a few years away.
I think such a plan would also gain the support of the long suffering II's, who must have been pulling their hair out over the last few years.
The bottom line is that no matter what, trials cost money, and we dont have any.
C7 can bang on about having enough money until 2020, but even if that was true ( which it isn't, we're going to need cash very soon ) it still doesn't help the trials, the current cash burn without trials will take everything thats left in the account over the next few months.
The situation is one of necessity, and the longer it goes unresolved, the harder it is going to be to rectify it... A last minute cash raise would be a total disaster, we need a different strategy and we need it now... IMHO.

[supernumerary] 04/4/2019 11:33

BS - surely the first trial should not have been neo-adjuvant? As it is, it's at least arguable that SCIB was never deployed against cancer, only against excised ie non-existent, cancer. It maybe would have been harder to set up and run a direct anti-cancer trial, but I think it was necessary if they were to demonstrate activity.

In terms of selling one of the platforms, it seems to me that one of the great problems with early-stage bios is that they always over-value their assets. Perfectly understandable, but not conducive to deal-making. Maybe scancell would have been better off giving one of the platforms away for a share of future royalties. A hard decision to take, and shareholders certainly wouldn't have liked it, but at least it would have avoided the costs and distraction associated with running two or more platforms.

[gazza] 04/4/2019 11:19

goy,
yes he's still around (un)fortunately you've just missed him!
Onan the Barbarian or the Biblical one? lol

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 10:40

Berm,
they have had 8 years +.
They have tried to follow the well trodden path and its not worked. They may not have been able to do things different historically, but NOW we are approaching a watershed moment when they must decide whether to continue doing what they've been doing, trying to develop all platforms and risk financial ruin, or totally change their ethos, and cash in some chips that will allow them to continue to sit at the table.

I could be wrong with my suggestion Berm, i accept that, but i also know that one thing im not wrong about is that the BOD have consistently under performed.
Its time to change tack IMHO.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 10:21

Panama,

I think they genuinely believed they would be able to secure a deal. You probably think it was just hype - we'll never know.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 10:16

Bermuda, you are correct there were no takers so how do you balance that against " Selling the company for many multiples " and " 7 years of significant interest in both platforms " after 2013 fundraise " we will now be in a position to do deals on both platforms ". How on earth were the BOD in any position to make any of those statements. The effect of making those statements and failing to back them up with anything of substance is a 5p shareprice and potential funding at 4p.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 10:15

As for the scattergun approach - they're caught between a rock and a hard place. They absolutely have to press on with moditope - if nothing else just to get the patents filed, all of which need to be supported by in depth research. Then they have to press on with at least one candidate from the platform because that patent clock is ticking away and they can't afford to just leave it sitting on the shelf.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 10:10

.......but if it's just a question of strategy or the business model then that suggests all you have to do is change the strategy and all will be well.

In terms of strategy - how would you have done things any differently? They ran a standard sized phase I/IIa trial for SCIB1 and achieved excellent results. They managed to get their foot in the door and get those NDA's signed but at the end of the day there were no takers and that is the fundamental issue here. How would a different strategy have made any difference?

You're making the huge assumption that there was a deal to be done - I'm not sure that's the case.

By the way, I'm not coming at this from the stance of defending the BOD, there are areas that I feel warrant criticism but I'm just trying to understand the real issues.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 10:10

Tosh, I totally agree with you they need to sell something. Let's face it anything they could potentially sell keeps going down in valuation anyway with all these fundraisings and more to come.

[the real lozan] 04/4/2019 10:08

Common sense v 'perception' -
IF.. this was as 'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it is
Surelee = This would not be SUB 6p
FUNDING would NOT be hard to find...As it IS
Trials would have been underway long ago... excluding other minor set-backs
EVERYONE would have NO CONcerns ...As they have
.
The CONcerns STEM from the FACT that the 'IMAGE' was 'planted' that - this was going to be 'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it WAS.
.
It is NOT, REALITY is different to invented expectations.
MAYBE, if folks understood... that MAYBE- the BoD are doing their BEST with what they HAVE, and are in a difficult market with numerous other companies 'vieing for backing', MAYBE - SUB 6p is what one might EXPECT ATM ???
At this stage in the development of SCLP... NO ONE should be surprised, or have been led to 'expect' £6 -'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it is.
Folks would not be sooo frustrated/ disappointed/ critical.. had they not allowed themselves to 'expect £6 -'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it was.
MAYBE, the BoD ARE doing their BEST under difficult circumstances
That doesn't mean to say, the BoD seem to make those cicumstances more difficult for themselves, or for shareholders, by 'being remote' ???

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 09:58

Panama,
i understand that principle, but to be able to run multiple trials, you need massive funding, and we dont have it... and unless theres some sort of deal which involves a third party buying or funding a platform, we will be raising in the 4p range, its total nonsense.
The scattergun approach can still be achieved via inbuilt royalty arrangements.

I can have 4 Bentley's parked on my drive, which look lovely, but if i cant afford the fuel to be able to drive any of them, whats the point ?
Better that i sell or rent one out so that i can buy the fuel to drive one of the others.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 09:50

Tosh, LD told an Investor at the AGM that they just need one target to hit and we would be in the money. I would take from that it's a scattergun approach as they don't have enough confidence in one single product and it's better to have several options in the hope that one pays off.

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 09:44

Berm,
but all they have done is driven the share price through the floor. There has been raise after raise but still no meaningful data.
There comes a time when rather than continue to screw the shareholders and haemorrhage cash, that the focus needs to be changed IMHO.
Better to get one platform to market in a timely fashion, than have numerous " potential " products that all require massive funding, and remain unproven.

I understand the usual protocol for baby bio's, but after nearly 8 years, we're still nowhere near attaining any form of proven product.
I would sell one of the platforms and then use the capital to fund the other.
Everything has a price, so if we were realistic in what we wanted to achieve from a sale, we could still retain certain on going royalties, but without the burden of the required trials.
May be a bit simplistic, but im certain theres a deal to be done somewhere.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 09:42

Bermuda, I agree with Tosh there has been no coherent business strategy it has all been built on arrogance that Big Pharma would be fighting each other to get a deal. The arrogance in Goodfellow's Frankfurt video confirms this. 65 NDA's issued and no interest yet they have consistently told us for 7 years that there is significant interest in both platforms. They bungle along in the hope that someone will trow money there way and then suddenly realise that is not going to happen and then have to raise funds from a position of weakness which has led to raising at ever decreasing prices and an ever falling shareprice. Their performance is summed up in the share chart of 7 years.