Why the land mines?, page-8

@smashintins

(reply function not working)

Maybe the Lind agreement was dependent on the outcome of the SPP.

Almost certainly was. All the more reason that it should have been disclosed.

Normally companies reserve the right to place any SPP shares not subscribed for by shareholders to an underwriter or "sophisticated investors", however this is usually on the same terms as the SPP. To have negotiated a deal with Lind on better terms than the SPP and not disclose this until the SPP was completed seems contrary to continuous disclosure obligations - hence the exposure IMO.


You’ve been carrying on about the cash position for a while now and never once acknowledged the broader Marco issues that the bio market in particular is facing. Most small cap bio investors know what they’re getting themselves into.

You float a biotech at 20cps and run out of cash before getting to a meaningful Phase 1 trial inflection point. That's got nothing to do with macro issues. Your executive management remuneration as a percentage of market cap is higher than I've seen at any other company (let alone any other biotech), and you stick to these remuneration arrangements while clinical trial timelines slip. Again, not macro, CHM-specific.


Two days ago you said we were going to go into administration and now we have funding and you’ve got issues with that.

Yes. In the 100+ capital raises I've witnessed over the years, I've never seen a company do what CHM did - ie offer a SPP while in the background offering a separate equity deal to a 3rd party, on better terms without disclosing it to shareholders. As I mentioned in a post after the SPP results were announced, the company didn't even have plans to try to place SPP shares that were not subscribed. Then just hours later we find out why - the placement wasn't to be on the same terms as the SPP. Yes, I have issues with that. Surprised you don't ...


Sure it might not be ideal but they’ve still managed to raise what they needed and again you ignore the fact that management chipped in a decent amount of that.

Whether they have raised enough is yet to be seen. Management put in a fraction of its annual remuneration - hooray. I'd have preferred if they had not driven the company into the desperate cash position in the first place. Raise at 2.7c two years after floating at 20c - deserves applause?


During your due diligence of the company of you ever get around to doing any I suggest you look at the latest small caps interview Jenn did and see how she explains how they managed to get CDH17.

In July 2021 in an official announcement to the ASX, CHM noted that it aimed to commence a Phase 1 trial of CDH17 in 2022. In a small caps interview in September 2022, JC unofficially announced that a Phase 1 trial of CDH17 won't start until 2023 (6-months in, it still hasn't started). Is that the interview you are referring to?