Myricx Bio

1.1 Identity and platform

Myricx Bio is described by Novartis and the company announcement as a privately held, UK-headquartered biotechnology company focused on a new class of antibody-drug conjugate payloads. The platform uses N-myristoyltransferase inhibitors, with lead ADC assets directed at B7-H3 and HER2. The retained evidence consistently describes the pipeline as preclinical rather than clinical. The scientific proposition is differentiated payload biology, not a demonstrated clinical product: Novartis says the payload is designed to address limitations of commonly used TOPO-1 and tubulin payload classes, while its own release qualifies potential activity and clinical validation. Myricx was spun out of Imperial College London and the Francis Crick Institute, and the company announcement names Professor Ed Tate, Dr Roberto Solari, and Dr Andrew Bell as founders. London is the only location established by the retained sources; no independently verified headcount, revenue, customer, or product-commercialization metric is available.[CO001, CO002, CO003, CO004, CO005]

1.2 Leadership, governance, and dependence

The leadership record shows a transition from founder-led scientific formation toward a more execution-oriented biotech team. The financing announcement identifies Robin Carr as CTO and says he joined from GSK in 2019, spearheading the pivot from small-molecule NMT inhibitors toward ADC payloads. The later transaction announcement identifies Mohit Rawat as CEO, joining in 2025 to steer preclinical development and the next stage of growth. The retained financing text also names an independent non-executive chair, Chris Martin, and scientific and clinical leaders Francesca Zammarchi and Robert McCleod. Novo Holdings and Abingworth representatives joined the board in connection with the Series A. This supports functional coverage across science, ADC development, clinical planning, and financing, but the evidence does not provide a complete current board roster, ownership table, succession plan, or formal key-person mitigation. The platform remains dependent on translating founder-originated NMT biology into a clinically viable ADC portfolio.[CO006, CO007, CO008, CO009, CO010]

1.3 Financing, transaction, and milestones

Myricx raised a £90 million Series A, reported as approximately $114 million, with Novo Holdings and Abingworth co-leading and British Patient Capital, Cancer Research Horizons, Eli Lilly, Brandon Capital, and Sofinnova Partners participating. The financing was earmarked for the NMTi ADC platform and clinical proof-of-concept preparation, not reported as revenue or cash on hand. Novartis subsequently announced an agreement to acquire Myricx for $1.1 billion upfront and up to $400 million in potential milestone payments, for a headline value of up to $1.5 billion. The transaction was expected to close in the second half of 2026 subject to customary conditions including regulatory approvals; the retained evidence does not verify completion. The sequence from 2019 spinout, 2023 preclinical presentations and team expansion, 2024 Series A, 2025 CEO appointment, and 2026 acquisition agreement is supported, while clinical entry, cash balance, burn, debt, cap table, and realized consideration remain open diligence items.[CO011, CO012, CO013, CO014, CO015, CO016]

1.4 Exhibits

2.1 Market boundary and demand

The relevant market is the development and eventual commercialization of oncology antibody-drug conjugates, with Myricx positioned specifically in the payload layer rather than as a complete antibody, linker, manufacturing, or hospital-distribution business. The company describes NMTi payloads as intended to work across solid-tumor settings and its disclosed preclinical leads target B7-H3 and HER2. This makes the near-term buyer set pharmaceutical oncology developers and strategic partners, while the eventual payer is a health system or insurer and the user is an oncologist treating a biomarker-defined patient. The category's demand is supported by the global cancer burden and by commercial ADC products already reaching multi-billion-dollar sales, but this does not make every payload platform's opportunity equivalent to total ADC product revenue. Excluded from the company-specific boundary are all ADC sales outside the target-antigen and payload contexts Myricx can technically address, contract manufacturing revenue, and unrelated antibody or oncology spending. Status-quo substitutes include existing TOPO-1 and tubulin-payload ADCs, conventional chemotherapy, other targeted therapies, and internal development by large pharmaceutical companies. The strategic market signal is therefore strong, while the conversion from category spend to Myricx revenue remains unproven.[CM001, CM002, CM003, CM004]

2.2 Sizing through multiple lenses

Available public estimates show why a single TAM number would be misleading. Grand View Research reports USD 14.5 billion in 2025 and USD 16.7 billion in 2026 for the global ADC market, forecasting USD 32.1 billion by 2033 at an 11.5% CAGR. The Business Research Company reports a higher USD 16.53 billion 2025 base and USD 20.28 billion in 2026, reaching USD 46.95 billion in 2030 at a 23.3% forecast CAGR. DCAT Value Chain Insights, citing Roots Analysis, uses an approximately USD 15 billion 2025 product-market estimate and separately sizes ADC contract manufacturing at approximately USD 1.7 billion in 2025 and USD 3.2 billion in 2035. These figures use different scopes, methodologies, and forecast horizons; they should be treated as alternative lenses rather than reconciled into a point estimate. A Myricx SAM would need to remove non-oncology and non-target segments, distinguish platform licensing from product sales, and reflect clinical-stage attrition. No public source isolates a Myricx-specific SOM, so any precise share or conversion assumption would be unsupported.[CM005, CM006, CM007, CM008, CM009]

2.3 Buyers, adoption path, and constraints

The adoption path is staged. In the current preclinical phase, Myricx's primary economic buyer is a pharmaceutical company seeking a differentiated payload mechanism, with licensing or acquisition as the most visible route; the Novartis agreement demonstrates strategic interest but is not evidence of recurring commercial revenue. Later buyers would include clinical development organizations and manufacturing partners, while hospitals and payers would determine uptake after approval. Hospital pharmacy accounted for 52.8% of ADC distribution in Grand View Research's 2025 segmentation, illustrating that administration, storage, infusion, reimbursement, and adverse-event management are part of the adoption system. The principal constraints are clinical validation of the NMT mechanism and therapeutic index, target and linker portability, regulatory approval, specialist manufacturing, payer acceptance, and competition from established payload classes. The competitive field is crowded: Patsnap reports 2,868 ADC drug records, 1,519 ongoing Phase 2/3 trials, and 20 marketed assets as of June 2026. Thus, the acquisition validates strategic scarcity more than it proves broad patient-level adoption, and diligence should focus on construct-level data and the terms and milestones that determine whether platform value converts into cash.[CM010, CM011, CM012, CM013, CM014]

2.4 Exhibits

The exhibits preserve the source differences and the key qualification that category market growth is not the same as Myricx revenue, ARR, or cash available to the company. The market is commercially meaningful, but the company-specific sizing path remains evidence-constrained until clinical, partnering, and construct-level data are public. They also separate product-market estimates from the smaller contract-manufacturing adjacency, so readers do not treat a service-market forecast as payload-platform revenue. The buyer map is a stage-gated workflow: strategic interest can precede clinical proof, while reimbursement and hospital operations become material only after approval.[CM005, CM008, CM009, CM013]

2.5 Exhibits

3.1 Competitive landscape and stage asymmetry

Myricx is not competing with a single like-for-like product. Its relevant set spans payload-platform companies, clinical NMT inhibitor developers, established ADC payload classes, and the status quo of internal discovery at large pharmaceutical companies. The strongest direct mechanistic comparator in the retained evidence is Pacylex: its March 2025 announcement describes oral zelenirstat as a first-in-class NMT inhibitor in an AML Phase 1/2 study and separately identifies 27 additional NMTis as potential ADC payloads. That creates a stage advantage for Pacylex in human validation, although its lead program is an oral small molecule for hematologic cancer rather than Myricx's ADC-first solid-tumor strategy. Myricx's own disclosed differentiation is an NMTi payload class intended to address limitations of commonly used TOPO-1 and tubulin payloads; the claim remains preclinical and company/partner sourced.[CP001, CP002, CP003, CP004]

3.2 Capability, buying criteria, and substitutes

The buyer decision is an integrated development and partnering decision, not a simple price comparison. ADC sponsors evaluate payload mechanism, antigen and linker compatibility, bystander behavior, therapeutic window, manufacturability, clinical stage, and access to validated antibodies and development know-how. The retained ADC review explains that payload release depends on the antibody, linker, intracellular processing, and drug-to-antibody ratio, and that cleavable linkers can improve delivery while increasing exposure to neighboring antigen-negative cells. This makes Myricx's reported bystander activity potentially relevant to heterogeneous tumors, but it also means that payload claims cannot be separated from construct-level evidence. Established HER2 ADCs demonstrate that validated target biology and clinical outcomes remain a formidable substitute for a novel payload platform.[CP005, CP006, CP007, CP008]

3.3 Moat durability and displacement risks

Myricx's moat is strongest where proprietary NMT chemistry, biological insight, and construct-specific data reinforce one another; it is weakest if NMT inhibition becomes reproducible through alternative chemistry or if incumbent payload platforms solve the same therapeutic-window problem. The retained resistance review states that advanced-stage patients treated with ADCs usually develop resistance and groups mechanisms into antigen expression, ADC processing, and payload efflux. That creates a real demand for new payloads, but it also raises a portability test: a platform must show repeatable benefit across antigens, linkers, DARs, and tumor contexts. Myricx's 2025 partner release reports durable regressions in multiple solid-cancer models and a nominated development candidate, while the independent clinical-stage comparator evidence shows that NMT biology is already being pursued outside Myricx. Until human data and construct-level comparisons are public, the durability judgment remains medium confidence.[CP009, CP010, CP011, CP012]

3.4 Commercial structure, pricing, and distribution power

Public evidence does not provide a like-for-like platform price for Myricx, Pacylex, or internal pharmaceutical development. The observable commercial anchors instead sit at different levels of the value chain: Myricx raised £90 million ($114 million) to fund platform and pipeline development; the announced Novartis transaction was valued at up to $1.5 billion, including $1.1 billion upfront and potential milestones; and an industry estimate places annual U.S. therapy costs at $168,000 for Enhertu and $174,000 for Trodelvy. None is a realized NMTi payload license price. Novartis ownership nevertheless changes distribution power by placing Myricx inside an incumbent oncology developer, while undisclosed licensing, royalty, manufacturing, and transfer economics prevent a defensible buyer-level price comparison.[CP004, CP013, CP015, CP016]

3.5 Exhibits

4.1 Financing and transaction economics

The clearest public financing datapoint is the £90 million Series A announced in 2024, described by Imperial as one of the largest Series A rounds ever raised by a European academic biotech spinout. Imperial says the round enabled Myricx Bio to scale operations, expand its team, and advance its pipeline; the assigned Cancer Research Horizons page is a reserve source for that financing but is not used here because the chapter can satisfy its source floor without it. The July 2026 proposed Novartis transaction is a different economic object from funding: Imperial reports up to $1.5 billion, including $1.1 billion cash upfront plus potential milestone payments, while the company's paid release uses the same terms. The headline value therefore should not be treated as cash available to the pre-close company, recurring revenue, or realized exit proceeds. The transaction was expected to close in H2 2026 subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, so the public record supports an announced consideration structure rather than a completed cash receipt as of the source dates.[CI001, CI002, CI003, CI004, CI005]

4.2 Revenue model and unit economics

Myricx Bio's disclosed operating model is preclinical drug discovery and development, not a commercial software or marketplace model. The public descriptions identify a proprietary NMTi payload platform and two lead ADC assets directed at B7-H3 and HER2, but the assigned evidence does not disclose product sales, licensing receipts, contract economics, customer count, clinical utilization, gross margin, or a recognized revenue stream. The most defensible financial interpretation is therefore a capital-consuming R&D platform with potential future value from partnering or acquisition, not an underwritten revenue business. The Novartis announcement frames the economics as cash upfront plus contingent milestones, which implies a material distinction between fixed consideration and development-dependent upside; it does not reveal milestone probabilities, payment timing, accounting treatment, or net proceeds to shareholders. Official Novartis results provide context for the buyer's scale, but they do not establish Myricx Bio's revenue quality or unit economics.[CI006, CI007, CI008, CI009, CI010]

4.3 Capital adequacy and underwriting blockers

Capital adequacy cannot be calculated from the assigned public evidence. Companies House shows the legal entity's last accounts made up to 31 July 2025 and next accounts due by 30 September 2027, but the overview page excerpt does not provide cash, liabilities, burn, or debt balances. The announced acquisition was still conditional on closing conditions in the Imperial account, and the company's acquisition release is explicitly a paid press release; neither source supplies a standalone balance sheet or a bridge from Series A proceeds to remaining cash. ADC comparables show why future capital requirements can be substantial: Pfizer's completed Seagen acquisition was approximately $43 billion, while BioMed Nexus describes ADC manufacturing as requiring specialized antibody, payload, linker, and safety capabilities and identifies safety, manufacturing capacity, and pricing as persistent challenges. Those comparables are contextual rather than forecasts for Myricx Bio. The financial verdict is therefore strategically validated but operationally under-disclosed: diligence should obtain the pre-close cash balance, monthly burn, debt and obligations, cap table, milestone schedule, and post-close accounting treatment before assigning value to contingent consideration.[CI011, CI012, CI013, CI014]

4.4 Exhibits

5.1 Product definition and maturity

Myricx Bio's product is not a marketed medicine or a general-purpose ADC service; it is a proprietary payload platform intended to be incorporated into antibody-drug conjugates for oncology. The company describes two lead ADC assets directed at the established B7-H3 and HER2 targets, alongside a broader preclinical NMTi-ADC pipeline. Its core design choice is to inhibit N-myristoyltransferase, an enzyme involved in protein myristoylation, instead of relying on the more common TOPO-1 or tubulin payload classes. The July 2026 transaction announcement states that Myricx has advanced a pre-clinical pipeline and that Novartis is acquiring two lead assets, so the strongest current maturity label is preclinical platform plus lead constructs, not clinical validation. The 2024 financing announcement reports efficacy and safety findings in multiple solid-cancer models, but those are company-reported preclinical results and do not substitute for IND-enabling toxicology or human pharmacology.[CE001, CE002, CE003, CE004]

5.2 Mechanism and ADC operating architecture

The platform's proposed mechanism is biologically differentiated but operationally dependent on the full ADC construct. The bioRxiv study reports that NMT inhibition was synthetic lethal with deregulated MYC in cancer models, with mitochondrial complex I protein-synthesis failure and loss of the assembly factor NDUFAF4 preceding mitochondrial dysfunction. Translating that biology into an ADC requires an antibody that binds an appropriate tumour-associated antigen, internalization, linker stability in circulation, intracellular payload release, and sufficient active payload exposure in tumour cells. Independent ADC literature identifies conjugation site, linker chemistry, linker length, steric hindrance, and cleavable versus non-cleavable linkage as determinants of stability, release, efficacy, and toxicity. This makes the platform more than a payload swap: its practical value depends on construct-level optimization and target context. The retained evidence does not disclose Myricx's exact antibody formats, linker chemistry, drug-to-antibody ratio, release kinetics, or analytical release specifications.[CE005, CE006, CE007, CE008, CE009]

5.3 Differentiation, deployment, and technical risk

The principal differentiator is the orthogonal NMTi payload mechanism and the associated possibility of addressing resistance or tolerability limitations of established ADC payload classes. The 2026 acquisition materials frame this as potential to broaden ADC use across solid-tumour settings, while the 2024 financing materials describe bystander activity and activity in models refractory to Topo1i-based ADCs. Those statements support a differentiated development hypothesis, not a demonstrated therapeutic index in patients. The platform also carries familiar ADC execution risks: antigen heterogeneity and on-target/off-tumour exposure, linker instability or incomplete intracellular release, payload resistance, systemic toxicity, manufacturing complexity, and uncertain translation from xenograft or organoid models. The source set does not provide a validated clinical safety package, regulatory status for a specific construct, a manufacturing partner, batch-release data, cybersecurity controls, or a public reliability/support process; these are material diligence gaps for a preclinical biotech.[CE010, CE011, CE012, CE013, CE014]

5.4 Diligence priorities

The next technical diligence step is construct-level rather than platform-level. A reviewer should request the lead-asset data package by antibody, antigen, linker, payload, drug-to-antibody ratio, release pathway, and model, with raw exposure and tolerability data rather than headline tumour-regression statements. The package should also connect the MYC/NMT mechanism to biomarker selection and explain whether the same payload chemistry is portable across B7-H3, HER2, and other antibody contexts. IND-enabling toxicology, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, stability-indicating assays, process development, and GMP readiness are not established by the retained evidence. The announced Novartis acquisition validates strategic interest and provides a potential development sponsor, but the transaction was expected to close in the second half of 2026 subject to customary conditions, so closing and post-close technical ownership should be verified separately.[CE015, CE016]

5.5 Exhibits

6.1 Buyer, user, and payer map

Myricx is a pre-commercial biotechnology developer rather than a software or services vendor with disclosed paying accounts. Its immediate economic counterparties are biopharma developers and strategic acquirers that can license, develop, manufacture, and commercialize antibody-drug conjugates; the ultimate users are oncology patients and treating clinicians, while payers and health systems would matter only after a medicine is approved. Myricx describes itself as focused on discovery and development of NMT-inhibitor payloads for ADCs, and its 2024 financing announcement says the company was building laboratories and an in-house R&D team rather than reporting customer contracts. The Novartis ownership statement confirms a strategic-owner relationship, but it is not evidence of recurring customer revenue or a launched product. Customer segmentation is therefore organized around development counterparties, clinical users, and eventual treatment channels, with scale and revenue fields left unverified.[CU001, CU002, CU003, CU004]

6.2 Adoption trajectory and durability

The strongest adoption signal is progression of the platform toward clinical development and the ability to attract new life-science investors, not measured customer usage. The 2024 financing source states that funds would advance NMTi-ADCs toward clinical proof of concept and establish London laboratory operations; it does not disclose active customers, contracted accounts, renewal rates, net revenue retention, repeat purchases, utilization, or paid deployments. External oncology and ADC sources establish that breast-cancer care, B7-H3 programs, and other ADC platforms address clinically meaningful treatment workflows, but they do not validate Myricx adoption. A durable customer thesis would require construct-level clinical progress, named development or licensing counterparties, and longitudinal evidence that any partnership expands beyond a one-time strategic transaction.[CU005, CU006, CU007, CU008, CU009]

6.3 Named proof, expansion, and concentration

Named counterparties in the retained material are investors and strategic ecosystem participants, not disclosed commercial customers. The Series A announcement names Novo Holdings, Abingworth, British Patient Capital, Cancer Research Horizons, Eli Lilly, Brandon Capital, and Sofinnova Partners, and says Novo and Abingworth representatives joined the board. That is evidence of financing and governance participation, while the company announcement describes preclinical efficacy and a planned move into clinical development; neither proves a customer deployment or outcome. The later ownership statement identifies Novartis as the owner from August 28, 2026, creating strategic concentration in one parent and making future external partnering, internal portfolio priority, and development funding important diligence questions. Competitor ADC programs illustrate that oncology customers can have alternatives, so Myricx must demonstrate differentiated clinical value rather than rely on platform novelty alone.[CU010, CU011, CU012, CU013]

6.4 Exhibits

7.1 Risk ranking and investment implications

Myricx's principal risk is translational rather than conceptual. The company describes multiple patent-protected NMTi series, compatibility with a range of linkers, and complete tumour regression in in vivo models, but the retained company materials do not provide a clinical dose, human safety dataset, or a construct-level package that confirms the platform's therapeutic window across antibodies and indications. The independent ADC resistance review explains why ADC outcomes depend on the interacting antibody, linker, and payload, and identifies antigen down-regulation, altered internalization or routing, impaired cytosolic release, and drug efflux as escape mechanisms. Those mechanisms make an apparently differentiated payload insufficient on its own. The resulting investment implication is to treat the platform as strategically validated but clinically binary until human pharmacology, tolerability, exposure, and response data are disclosed.[CR001, CR002, CR003, CR004]

7.2 Regulatory, legal, and transaction exposure

The retained regulatory evidence is a general U.S. biotechnology coordination framework, not a Myricx-specific approval or IND record; therefore it supports the existence of a coordinated safety and transparency regime but cannot be used to infer that Myricx has cleared any regulatory milestone. Companies House records show material post-announcement corporate changes: Novartis was notified as a person with significant control on 2 September 2026, share rights were varied, directors changed, and the accounting period was extended. Novo Holdings' 6 July 2026 announcement says the transaction was expected to close in the second half of 2026 subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals. Until closing and the post-close operating structure are confirmed, transaction completion, governance continuity, IP ownership, and responsibility for development obligations remain diligence items.[CR005, CR006, CR007, CR008]

7.3 Operational, quality, partner, and financial dependencies

The company stated in its Series A announcement that financing would be used to build the NMTi ADC payload platform and advance candidates toward clinical proof of concept; the same announcement described a transition from a virtual company toward its own laboratories and in-house R&D team. That transition creates execution dependencies in assay reproducibility, conjugation and linker control, analytical characterization, toxicology, manufacturing readiness, and hiring. The acquisition announcement provides a potential capital and platform sponsor, but it also introduces integration and milestone-dependency risk because up to $1.5 billion includes $1.1 billion upfront plus potential milestone payments, and the announcement does not disclose milestone conditions or development decision rights. No retained source supplies standalone cash, burn, debt, working-capital, supplier concentration, or quality-system data.[CR009, CR010, CR011, CR012]

7.4 Monitoring indicators and thesis-break triggers

The appropriate monitoring plan focuses on measurable evidence rather than the existence of a promising mechanism. Near-term positive signals would include a completed acquisition, disclosed IND-enabling package, reproducible exposure and tolerability across more than one NMTi-ADC construct, and a first-in-human study with a justified starting dose. Thesis-break signals would include failure to close the transaction, a material delay in regulatory submissions, dose-limiting toxicity that narrows the therapeutic index, loss of activity in clinically relevant models, evidence that antigen or linker behavior prevents payload delivery, or a decision to discontinue the platform. The retained evidence supports these as diligence and monitoring criteria; it does not establish that any criterion has already been met.[CR013, CR014, CR015, CR016]

7.5 Exhibits

8.1 Decision frame and recommendation

The decision is not whether Myricx attracted strategic interest; the disclosed transaction already answers that question. Invest Europe reports an agreement worth up to $1.5 billion, including $1.1 billion in cash upfront and as much as $400 million in milestones. The investable question is whether that headline can be reused as a fair-value mark or entry price. It cannot. The reviewed evidence does not disclose closing adjustments, milestone definitions, liquidation preferences, ownership at exit, or the distribution of proceeds. Accordingly, the recommendation is research more / track, with medium confidence and high risk. Any new underwriting at a headline-equivalent price should wait for transaction documents, construct-level human data, and a cap-table waterfall. This is price discipline, not a negative judgment on the platform.[CV001, CV002, CV016]

8.2 Financing context, proof, and anti-thesis

Myricx entered the strategic process from a well-funded but still evidence-sensitive position. Cancer Research Horizons reported a £90 million ($114 million) Series A intended to build the NMTi payload platform and advance NMTi-ADCs through clinical proof of concept; Invest Europe reports £104 million of total seed and Series A funding. The official publications page lists a 2025 Cell Reports paper on MYC deregulation and NMT inhibition, which supports biological relevance but is not a substitute for a clinical safety, pharmacokinetic, or efficacy package for the acquired constructs. The anti-thesis is therefore straightforward: strategic scarcity and preclinical differentiation may have driven the price before clinical risk was retired. Evidence from failed or modestly active peer ADC programs shows that linker-payload promise does not eliminate therapeutic-index and efficacy risk.[CV003, CV004, CV005, CV006, CV007, CV014]

8.3 Comparable calibration and entry discipline

Comparable transactions are useful only after adjusting for development stage, acquired scope, and guaranteed versus contingent value. Gilead's Tubulis agreement offers the clearest current contrast: $3.15 billion upfront plus up to $1.85 billion contingent for a company whose lead asset was already in Phase 1b/2 and whose second program had initial clinical data. Earlier transactions cited by Nature include $2.0 billion for Ambrx, whose lead asset was in Phase 2, and $1.8 billion for ProfoundBio with three clinical-stage candidates. Those references do not mechanically value Myricx; they show why a clinical-stage premium and platform breadth must be separated from headline deal size. A consultancy's proprietary phase benchmarks are retained only as a low-confidence sensitivity, not an independent valuation verdict.[CV008, CV009, CV010, CV011, CV012, CV013, CV015]

8.4 Scenarios, exit readiness, and thesis-break triggers

The bull case is a completed acquisition followed by milestone achievement and clinical translation of the NMTi-ADC platform; its observable ceiling is the disclosed $1.5 billion headline, not an independently appraised intrinsic value. The base case treats the $1.1 billion upfront as evidence of strategic willingness to pay while withholding a standalone valuation range until deal mechanics and human data are available. The bear case is milestone non-payment or clinical failure, for which the public record supplies no defensible valuation floor. Thesis-break triggers are a failure to close, materially narrower milestone eligibility than the headline suggests, dose-limiting toxicity, insufficient efficacy at tolerated exposure, or inability to reproduce activity across antibody contexts. Final diligence should obtain the purchase agreement, closing evidence, cap table and preference waterfall, milestone schedule, and full IND-enabling and early clinical package before assigning a target return.[CV001, CV002, CV007, CV008, CV009, CV014, CV016]

8.5 Exhibits