Verona Pharma Share Discussion Threads

[timbo003] 14/1/2019 17:02

As I stated previously, I do not believe they are not pursuing the best strategy for the drug

They should be either focusing on CF, or COPD exacerbations in an emergency room setting.

[haff1] 14/1/2019 14:49

I did...my comment starts with"...overal"!

[meijiman] 14/1/2019 11:23

Read the first bullet point in highlights.............

[haff1] 14/1/2019 10:19

...overal looks like good news and the share price plummets?!

[pdt] 14/1/2019 09:29

Looks like 1.5 mg is the dose to progress.

Although it was a fail on the primary I thought the most significant comment was;

"The statistically significant reduction observed in residual volume for the
ensifentrine 1.5 mg dose at certain time points, which is closely
related to dyspnea or breathlessness, highlights the potential for
ensifentrine to provide symptomatic improvement for patients with this
progressive and debilitating disease."

In addition it did achieve improvements in FEV1 but these were small and not statistically significant. A notably exception was the day 3 evening dose.

They now have information to design the next trial to play to their strengths.

If I had COPD and was offered it would I take it? Clearly the answer would be yes. I suspect that would be the general answer but would those with the purse strings pay for it?

[timbo003] 11/1/2019 09:43

Vas, I doubt if the Vernalis directors had a lot of choice in the matter after their abject failure with the US venture. My guess is that Woodford just wanted to salvage what value he could, so insisted on the US closure and the sale of the company.

[vasilis] 10/1/2019 14:17

Tim

Even under your interpretation the scenario you outline has an uncertain cash flow which from what I can see doesn't cover the reduced overheads and cash burn going forward. As I say, if the situation was as you point out and Vernalis was an 'absolute bargain', then it raises even more the question of why Vernalis's directors put the company up for sale in March 2018. Note also that the directors thought Ligand's bid was quite reasonable. So if things were expected to get better as you imply, why put the 'For Sale' sign up? And why no other bidders for such a bargain? Or was Ligand the only party to do due diligence on Vernalis?

I imagine that David Ebsworth may have had a better view of things at Vernalis last March and may/may not have chatted informally to Vernalis - either before or after March 2018. I would also be very surprised if Vernalis themselves hadn't informally approached Verona about their intentions to sell bearing in mind the relationship between companies. So I do agree that there are questions to be asked bearing in mind that Vernalis held an interest in Verona's main asset when it put itself up for sale and that interest now finds itself in another party's hands. Which also raises the question, what are Ligand's intentions vis a vis their interest in Ensifentrine?

[timbo003] 10/1/2019 10:27

>>>Vas

Regarding Vernalis, the nasty cash burn was due to the unsuccessful US business, set up to sell a range of Rx cough cold products which were ill-conceived and turned out to be a damp squib. The US business was finally closed in Q2 2018 and a full provision was made in the accounts as I recall. Going forward after the US business had been terminated, Vernalis had greatly reduced overheads and cash burn. They had revenue coming in from the UK research business (albeit sporadic), further revenue to come from Frovatriptan royalties and a pipeline of potential milestone and royalty income (including RPL554 and CPI-444 [which had been out-licenced to Corvus]).

IMO Ligand picked up an absolute bargain and I will most certainly be asking David Ebsworth to explain whether VRP made any approach to acquire Vernalis either as a whole or in part, and if they did not make an approach, then why not?

[pdt] 09/1/2019 16:23

Ensifentrine is a more catchy name than RPL554 :)

[tomboyb] 09/1/2019 13:11

I wonder if saffy is buying a few -

[tomboyb] 09/1/2019 13:08

Verona Pharma plc Verona Pharma Receives Who Approval For "Ensifentrine" As Recommended Inn For Rpl554

[tomboyb] 09/1/2019 13:07

Approval - rns

[vasilis] 09/1/2019 12:08

Tim

VER's interims of 28 March 2018 - ugly reading in my view - did though show cash at 31 Dec'17 as £48m - yet still VER put itself up for sale. Why? Worthwhile to read those interims again as the cash position doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story in my view.

Note that when Ligand's cash offer was successful the price valued VER as a whole at £32.67m as per the RNS dated 9 Aug '18. Note the difference in company valuation between VER's interims of 28 March 2018 and the RNS of 9 August 2018. Clearly the cash position was deteriorating as an 'asset' which is probably why the directors acted as they did with the interims of 28 March 2018.

I think that VER were lucky to do a deal with Ligand - whose parent in the US has a Nasdaq listing - but clearly VER is seen to have assets which fit into Ligand's overall strategy. I presume Verona could not see any other benefit other than taking full control of their only asset undergoing trials. But if Verona had acted, at what cost? What about dealing with the rest of Vernalis which was bleeding cash? From what I can see Verona would in all likelihood have paid a much heavier price than you suggest of £5m from what I can work out. After all, if VER's directors were more or less saying they were chucking in the towel at the interims of 28 March 2018 - and with that level of cash - what did Verona have that Vernalis didn't have to reverse Vernalis's fortunes? Add in the fact that Verona would have had to justify diverting valuable cash resources to make a deal that was clearly loss-making at the outset, then I for one can understand why Verona did not bid.

AIMO of course and just the way I see it from the limited evidence available. Whether these reasons tally with the CEO's reasons for not bidding I've no idea.

[bioking] 09/1/2019 08:28

OT) Please look at Futura Medical (FUM) has a dirt low market cap of 19 Million and has 3 Drugs including a potential MEGA Blockbuster in Phase 3 for the treatment of erectile dysfunction which works way faster than market leaders like Viarga and Cialis . If you look for a potential 10+ Bagger then load up FUM


Research Confirms MED2002's US$1 Billion Potential
hxxps://futuramedical.com/content/news/archive17/060317b.asp

The latest market research further endorses Futura's strategy of developing MED2002 as a prescription product in standard and increased strength dose forms, with the objective of switching the standard dose form to an OTC product at an appropriate time.

Ipsos's validated healthcare forecasting model was used to predict peak OTC annual sales for MED2002 in key countries worldwide in excess of US$650 million. This forecast follows earlier market research commissioned into the potential of MED2002 as a prescription product, which indicated a prescription market size of up to US$600 million in key countries worldwide.

Ipsos forecasts that 70% of OTC product sales will be incremental to the prescription ED category. As a result, the estimated peak annual sales of MED2002 in prescription and OTC versions is predicted to be more than US$1 billion prior to the expiry of the product's expected patent life.

The Ipsos valuation was based on the outcomes from primary market research carried out amongst 400 men with ED or suspected ED in the USA. The respondents were in four groups: satisfied users of PDE5 inhibitors (the class of drugs such as Viagra and Cialis); dissatisfied users of PDE5 inhibitors; diagnosed but untreated ED sufferers; and suspected though undiagnosed ED sufferers. The respondents were shown a concept about MED2002 as part of the market research though they did not use the product as it is currently in clinical development.

The key findings of the market research showed that the respondents believed that the product, once approved, is highly differentiated from existing products and that its claims would meet their needs. MED2002's rapid onset of action, an average of less than five minutes, was the key feature that attracted respondents to the product and could command a price premium compared with existing ED treatments, which have a substantially slower onset of action.

The Ipsos healthcare forecasting model has been demonstrated by Ipsos to be within 20% of actual sales volumes in 9 out of 10 of its forecasts.


Pipeline
hxxps://www.futuramedical.com/media/144144/Pipeline-2018.jpg

MED2002 (topical treatment for erectile dysfunction) hxxps://futuramedical.com/content/products/med_2002.asp

first patient dosed: in Q3/Q4 2018
Last patient dosed: by end of June 2019
Headline efficacy results: by end of December 2019

CSD500: Erectogenic condom
hxxps://futuramedical.com/content/products/csd_500.asp

Significant milestone achieved with approval of 2-year shelf life approved for CSD500, the erectogenic condom in September 2018. Development now complete. Discussions are ongoing with current and potential further distribution partners on next steps with the product in a number of markets.

Pain relief products: TPR100 (diclofenac) and TIB200 (ibuprofen) hxxps://futuramedical.com/content/products/tpr_100.asp

TPR100 commercial partner Thornton & Ross filed for UK regulatory submission in July 2018.
Out-licensing discussions for TPR100 outside of the UK are ongoing.

[timbo003] 08/1/2019 23:10

Vernalis was sold for £32m but it had £27m in cash and a few other potential royalty streams, so the price net of cash was around £5m. That's why the Verona Chairman, David Ebsworth, has a lot of explaining to do.

[timbo003] 08/1/2019 20:10

Digger, unfortunately I don't think this is the case, according to the Verona Aim admission document, it expired either on patent expiry, or 10 years after launch in each territory, which ever was the longer (see link below)

[digger18] 08/1/2019 16:50

Nice to see you comment Timbo and other LTH's.
I could be wrong, but didn't the Vernalise milestone / royalty agreement expire in 2020? If that is the case, then there would be no need to buy them, as we will not be commercialised until 2020 at the earliest.

[timbo003] 08/1/2019 07:38

Also why didn't they make a move on Vernalis when it was up for sale? They could have bought out their stake in RPL554 for peanuts, that lack of action was definitely NOT a passive vote of confidence in Verona's one and only asset.

The Chairman is going to face some very, very tough questions form me at the next AGM and if he is up for re-election at the next AGM, I will be voting against his re-election unless he comes up with a very plausible explanation for why he did not act during the Vernalis bid situation.

[timbo003] 08/1/2019 07:12

I'm still around (and invested), but there hasn't really been any substantial news to comment on, furthermore, I do worry that they are pursuing the wrong strategy, vis

* I am not sure that prioritizing COPD over CF is the best way forward.

* If they are going to prioritize COPD, they should not be messing around looking at dry powder combinations, they should be focusing on the nebuliszd solution

[shakin not stirred] 07/1/2019 22:07

Yes Timbo has left and with nothing happening not surprised. Probably lost the will to live..like most

[digger18] 07/1/2019 19:30

Sorry - Timbo.
A very knowledgeable poster and originator of this thread.

[digger18] 07/1/2019 19:29

Is Tombo still on this thread?

[pdt] 04/1/2019 20:46

Have you seen their latest appointment news;



Two experienced people in the Respiratory space :)