CMMB

$CMMB chatter on StockTwits

• 
  Apple Jane Mortel@ajmrtxl18m

  $CMMB 's latest data on SqueezeFinder

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Peter M@InvestorNORBullish13h

  $CMMB Recieved something very close to a S-4 today from undisclosed source. Cannot share but boys, I think we are VERY close to first S-4 now 🙏🏻

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Kloppholic@Kloppholic18h

  $CMMB SEC filing 13G https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=101533&ref=320268579&type=HTML&symbol=CMMB&cdn=535d102c88d0d511a2f443b8271137d8&companyName=Chemomab+Therapeutics+Ltd.&formType=SCHEDULE+13G&dateFiled=2026-08-13

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Peter M@InvestorNORBullish19h

  $CMMB No earnings before open like many trackers said No first S-4 yet and soon we are approaching 40 days. hmmmmmm

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Scott@Snptrader21h

  $CMMB only 400 shares available to short with 30% borrow rate.. last report only has 150K shorts 🤔

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Peter M@InvestorNOR22h

  $CMMB New institutional investor in Chemomab 😎 Touchstone Global Investment

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Peter M@InvestorNOR22h

  $CMMB

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Biotech Pharma Investor@Biotech_Pharma_Investor1d

  $CMMB Good point! But doesnt seem much of a problem if targeting just a $40M upfront (+ rest of deal backloaded) (1) PSC TAM (>30000 patients in US) is decent even with RA-pricing (2) Why do you assume a new biologic in RA would be cheap? (3) Dosing/schedule may be different comparing the 2 indications (which could make off label difficult) (4) PSC is ph3-ready. RA ph2 readout in 2028. So years behind (if ever)

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  الصابر العنزي@Zdxss11d

  $CMMB In poor or developing countries, a drug intended for a common disease (such as RA) can be used to treat a rare disease (such as PSC) off‑label, because oversight is weaker and patients/doctors seek the cheaper option. Major markets: In the US, Europe, Japan, Australia, and Canada, there is strict regulation of orphan drugs. These markets represent about 80% of the orphan drug market, and treatment is dispensed only in specialized centers where the number of patients and required doses are precisely tracked. Important point: Insurance companies are the ones who pay, which makes the use of orphan drugs more controlled, since payment is tied to approved centers and authorized doses. Another key point: If a partnership or licensing deal occurs, the share price could jump to $10 because of the low number of shares. It would not require $5 in merger costs, which would only be realized after many months. I believe a full acquisition is the most likely outcom

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Chirag Patel@cpatel2001d

  $CMMB Here is a food for thought. I do not believe Nebokitug can exist with two different owners. A pharma partner cannot license PSC from SCIP if SCIP simultaneously controls RA approval of the same molecule at non-orphan pricing because PSC patients will simply use the cheap RA drug off-label, destroying the partner's commercial model. This means if pharma is interested in the drug, they have to go for the whole pie, there is no sharing.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  الصابر العنزي@Zdxss11d

  $CMMB I notice that some members do not fully understand how the market and deals work. They think that once a merger intent is announced, a partnership agreement could be signed before the actual merger and the merger would continue without any changes. In reality, if a partnership or licensing agreement is signed before the merger — and assuming both parties still wish to proceed (though I consider this unlikely) — the terms must be re‑evaluated according to the new valuation, as CMMB’s value has increased, and the old agreement canceled. Alternatively, the merger could be canceled entirely if the company becomes capable of continuing independently.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Scott@SnptraderBullish1d

  $CMMB $CMMB — The key question isn't "Is Scipher a good partner?" The key question is: "Did the Board prove that Scipher is the best economic outcome for CMMB shareholders?" If the answer is yes, the S-4 should make that case through the valuation analysis, fairness opinion and strategic alternatives process. If the Board hasn't tested the market for nebokitug, shareholders have every right to ask why. PSC P3 + SSc + RA optionality shouldn't be dismissed simply because CMMB needs capital. Capital constraints create negotiating urgency. They don't determine the strategic value of the asset.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Scott@SnptraderBullish1d

  $CMMB Post 5/5 — What shareholders should demand from the S-4 What I want to see in the S-4 Before shareholders vote, the Board should clearly disclose: • Was an independent investment bank retained? • Was a fairness opinion performed? • What was the standalone rNPV/SOTP valuation? • What precedent transactions were used? • What value was assigned to PSC, SSc & RA? • Were pharma companies contacted? • Were any indications of interest received? • What strategic alternatives were rejected? • How was the 32%/68% split negotiated? • How were the CVRs probability-weighted? This isn't anti-Scipher. It's about whether CMMB shareholders are receiving fair value for an asset that could be worth hundreds of millions—or potentially much more—to a strategic buyer. The Board's job isn't simply to complete the deal already negotiated. It's to maximize shareholder value.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Scott@SnptraderBullish1d

  $CMMB Post 4/5 — The alternatives Scipher may be a good partner. That's not the issue. The question is whether Scipher is the best economic outcome for CMMB shareholders. Before approving the merger, the Board should have evaluated: Outright sale of CMMB Sale/license of nebokitug Pharma partnership Upfront funding + milestones + royalties Strategic investment Competitive process involving multiple potential buyers If Scipher's biggest benefit is capital + precision-medicine expertise, could CMMB have obtained those benefits without giving up such a large portion of future nebokitug economics? That's the question.

  View on StockTwits ↗
• 
  Scott@SnptraderBullish1d

  $CMMB Post 3/5 — M&A precedent The strategic M&A market matters Recent rare-disease/immunology transactions demonstrate that pharma continues to pay substantial amounts for differentiated clinical-stage assets. Examples include: • Alkeus/Tarsus — up to $800M • Actio/Jazz — up to $1.32B • Other recent rare-immunology transactions reaching well into the hundreds of millions and beyond. Obviously, these aren't apples-to-apples comparisons. But they establish an important question: Has CMMB actually tested the market for nebokitug? If pharma companies were never meaningfully approached, how can shareholders know the $150M transaction represents maximum value?

  View on StockTwits ↗

Recent $TICKER stream from stocktwits.com — refreshed every 5 minutes. Sentiment tags are self-reported by posters. Not investment advice.