Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
3dm Worldwide LSE:TDM London Ordinary Share GB0030949472 ORD 2.5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 5.19p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0.00 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Unknown 0.4 -7.3 -9.4 - 0.00

3dm Worldwide (TDM) Latest News

Real-Time news about 3DM Worldwide (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
More 3dm Worldwide News
3dm Worldwide Takeover Rumours

3dm Worldwide (TDM) Share Charts

1 Year 3dm Worldwide Chart

1 Year 3dm Worldwide Chart

1 Month 3dm Worldwide Chart

1 Month 3dm Worldwide Chart

Intraday 3dm Worldwide Chart

Intraday 3dm Worldwide Chart

3dm Worldwide (TDM) Discussions and Chat

3dm Worldwide Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
03/7/201613:223DM Worldwide - Superstock??23,347.00
24/8/200720:20THE WORST IS OVER. TIME FOR A LOOK ??121.00
25/7/200714:223DM with Charts & News265.00
12/10/200614:503DM Worldwide, a true world beater.100.00
15/9/200513:002005 3DM Worldwide Thread : Open for Business718.00

Add a New Thread

3dm Worldwide (TDM) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all 3dm Worldwide trades in real-time

3dm Worldwide (TDM) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
01/8/2007
14:04
bluebelle: rochdale It was one of my old posts I cut and pasted from a few years back !!! That's the great thing about TDM : no original thought is ever needed : the only thing that changes is the date (oh, and the share price, normally downwards !)
01/8/2007
09:54
bluebelle: Seems to me that this deal is just more of the same. The plain fact of the matter is that companies cannot exist in the long term without more cash coming in than is going out, a simple fact which seems never to have impinged on the thinking of the people who are really running this company. Those people -incredibly - have not changed since the blue sky days, other than that PA - who always struck me as the ultimate example of a guy who thought he had built a better, well the best, mousetrap and was happy to wait for the world to beat a path to his door - is no longer involved day to day. Instead of focusing on sales and marketing the focus has been on doing intellectually satisfying, legally clever, predominantly incestuous deals from which those who were party to the incest stood to benefit rather more than other PIs. The thing they overlooked was that no matter how much you dress things up, without sales you're stuffed, unless of course you can sell the IP to some one who thinks they can sell it for more than you personally paid to generate it (by using shareholders' funds to do so for you for example!). It's up to anyone to do what they want with their own money, but my take on the current situation is that this is an even more speculative investment than it has ever been, the only difference perhaps being that the risk is more transparent. The time to buy, if it comes, will be at a much higher price from now IMHO, on the basis of some conventional sales and profit figures. If they manage that, there will still be plenty to go for in the share price. If they don't.................................... ....is it finally time to say 'good bye' to an old friend.................
09/7/2007
08:15
melony: I sometimes wonder if there is any other AIM listed company that has been so badly run as Tdm, in terms of shareholder value. Tdm seems to have given up all hope of survival, and it's simply waiting for its executioners to carry out their judgments. I wait with keen interest to see if another British innovative company would be sent to the gallows for perceived self inflicted injuries. The company is being sold for peanuts. Shareholders are being diluted to minority stakeholders with endless issue of shares and the company is run in the interest of creditors and market makers. The share price should end the in the negative, for a contract win. The company is being punished for making survival attempts, a sign of very weak management, unable to make a firm stand. Shame!
09/5/2007
22:17
ch1ck: I met with the company a few years ago at a plastics convention in Birmingham and was impressed with the management and staff who seemed very committed to the product and company. I could see the masive potential of this process that utilised waste plastic material. Since then I have watched as the share price drop lower. This year things seem to have changed and the company looks to have turned the corner having made some dificult desicions. The recent increasing volume spikes are very positive and the brief move through 10p showed that there was life in the old dog yet. I recently started buying more stock and think this has the potential to do extremely well. It has all the hallmarks of a stock about to move: it has an market leading product in an area (recycling and waste ) which is very much the hot topic at the moment. The share price is very depressed at the moment and is well known to the City and investors (it was voted one of the worst performing stocks last year). For what it's worth I predict this stock will start gaining momentum most of the sellers, shorters and derampers are spent and if the company can back up its potential I can see 20p per share in the near tearm and 50p plus in one year. Lets see
21/2/2007
13:34
silent_angel: TKoN, cool, np. Top 5 objections. I didn't think it was in any tye of viable commercial production at all? Good point, I will amend to the following. - The Patented process is not in commercial production yet. Re: The 3 contract wins so far this year are not yet providing Royalties. "And,given previous history, may never." - as you would say, going by previous history is completely pointless. - I would ask which is more likely, that the people who bought licences will go on to use them and produce? (giving TDM Royalties in the process) or not? Re: There are no dividends being paid yet from this company to shareholders. "And there aren't likely to be for goodness knows how long." Good point, so we don't expect dividends, it depends if investors want dividends from the shares they pick or they would like the fact that they don't priced in to the share price. "There's no growth either." There is forcast growth. - The company is not yet in profit. Good objection that in my view. Yes, it is, generally speaking it makes it a riskier share to buy. The fact should be priced in at the current share price. It does not however suggest how much or how steep the share price might rise (or fall) in the future. - The past history of the share price does not guarantee future performance. "It certainly doesn't but that doesn't mean that a turnaround can't come along. My point was that saying the price rose by a 1000% in 2003 is totallu pointless." Looking at the past history of the share price does not guarantee the future share price, but I suggest it is one of the first things that people look at when deciding whether or not to buy or sell. And I think you will agree, The historic share price is definately something to keep in mind!
21/2/2007
12:44
silent_angel: joyridder, Good luck in hoping that the current share price breaks the current uptrend, I for one have evaluated the chance of that not happening and not being able to buy at the level you suggest, the chance of it going up again and the chance of missing out on a great opportunity if you don't buy now. Top 5 FACTS about TDM - Own the unique patented process of making lower cost, recyclable plastics. - Royalties from licences will be easy to maintain income in the long term. - One Broker reccomendation, strong buy, predicting positive cash flow in 07. - June to Nov 2003 the share price went from 13.5p to 197p..1359% in 100 days! - News out 3 contract wins so far this year proving they do have something!
10/1/2007
17:53
silent_angel: Hi Calisar, Are you in? Evening all. Thank you sandifoundation, adie2001 and madasafish for your informative posts. Especially Sandyfoundation for that useful link, and info about Bovis and Land securities which gives us another reason not to sell, to hold and to buy TDM. When the share price trends up, they won't have to sell as many shares to pay for their loan repayment, (if they indeed do have to do this) and therby making it even less resistance for more up trend and then the next month once again less shares sold to pay loan repayment, and so on, in an ever improving cycle. Also they are now halfway through the loan which is always a good thing, every day bringing us closer to a company that is making a profit, and when that happens, it is likely the investment interest in 3DM Worldwide will boom. As a reminder the broker (100% reccomend strong buy), has estimated this to be the year CashFlow per share will go from negative to positive. They let their share price slide so far down because they are more interested in capitalising on their intellectual rights than getting tied into production hence their sell off with a 30% royalty deal last year. They have done whats best for their long term future. Obviously they have to do just enough to keep the books balancing. earning royalties is almost an unearned income revenue stream as all they have to do is provide technical support. So all this investment with just enough cash flow will pay off later. So where now for the share price? It has gone from support at 4p to support at 5p. (look at last 8 days on a bar/ candlestick), note the increase in volume with price rise today ;)
08/1/2007
17:40
silent_angel: Wow, you guys are being so helpful, Thank you. Ok let me get this right, TDM have been paying off their loan to Cornell in shares, who have then been selling the shares? That would indicate that they don't believe in the investment they made otherwise they would keep the shares surely? But as the price goes down they can get more shares for their money, so it could be their stratagy that they are selling their shares to trend the share price down and then they will get most of it back towards the end of their loan, then hey stop selling, buy as much as they can and watch the share price go back up?
11/12/2006
07:53
aldington: adie,i agree IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 23rd November 2006 B e f o r e : MR JUSTICE DAVID STEEL ____________________ Between: Battlebridge Group Ltd Claimant - and - Amala Equity Ltd Joseph Kelly Defendants ____________________ Andrew J D Green (instructed by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft ) for the Claimant Alexander Cranbrook (instructed by DMH Stallard) for the Defendant Hearing date: 8 November 2006 ____________________ HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________ Crown Copyright © Mr Justice David Steel : The Claimant ("Battlebridge") is a private equity investment company incorporated in England. The claim arises out of a Limited Recourse Loan Agreement dated 28 January 2004 ("the Agreement") between Battlebridge and Amala Equity Ltd ("Amala"). In the Agreement, Amala was described as a company "incorporated under the laws of Gibraltar and represented by Joseph Kelly". Joseph Kelly ("Mr Kelly") is the 2nd Defendant. In the particulars of claim, Amala, joined as the 1st Defendant, is described as a party to the Agreement and identified as a company incorporated under the laws for Ireland. It was said "to carry on business as an investment company". It became clear during the trial and in particular during the course of the oral evidence of Mr Kelly: - a) that there were two companies under the name of Amala: one incorporated in Ireland and the other in Gibraltar; b) neither of them has ever traded; c) they are both the creatures of Mr Kelly: he is the sole shareholder and the sole executive director: the companies are both controlled by him; d) both companies have bank accounts but no assets; e) Mr Kelly appreciated the fact that Battlebridge's pleaded case as to the identity of the parties to the contract was inaccurate, despite which he allowed the filing of a defence on his behalf admitting the identity of the contracting party; f) the Gibraltar company was struck off the register on the 28 June 2006. This state of affairs was the subject of supplementary submissions after completion of the trial. Counsel for the Claimant submitted that it was appropriate both to proceed on the basis that the contracting party was the Irish company and to amend the Particulars of Claim to advance a personal claim against Mr Kelly on the basis that the Irish company was a façade for the business activities of Mr Kelly so that the corporate veil of the Irish company should be pierced. There was no response to this submission until the eve of the judgment being handed down. At this late stage the Defendants submitted that there was no evidence of the role played by other directors in the operations of the company. I reject this submission. I have no doubt whatsoever that Mr Kelly was in total control of the company being sole shareholder and sole executive director. Accordingly I allow the amendment and proceed on the basis suggested. This may be of less significance that might appear at first blush. Even at the hearing I understood it was accepted on Mr Kelly's behalf that any liability of Amala was his also. By the agreement, Amala agreed to lend a total sum of £3.69 million to Battlebridge secured against 5,493,708 shares in an AIM listed company called 3DM Worldwide Plc ("TDM"). The amount of the loan was 40% the value of the shares as at the time of receipt of those shares by Amala. The agreement provided that the shares should be placed and remain in a designated account described as "Banca Aperta A/c No.100934886300 reference Joseph Kelly A/c No.22/52378-Amala Equity". Amala were under an obligation not to deal with the shares (save to the extent of establishing its credit line for financing the loan). Battlebridge's obligation to pay the loan (the term being 5 years) was to be evidenced by a promissory note in a prescribed form, delivery of which was a condition precedent to the advance. The loan was on a non-recourse basis namely so in the event of default by Battlebridge, Amala's only recourse was to be by way of liquidation of the collateral stock. The agreement was executed on 28 January 2004 and the share certificates were duly forwarded to Amala. Amala became the registered holders of the stock on 24 February 2004. The certificates were placed in the hands of Phillips Securities (UK) Ltd ("Phillips") in a nominee account. Thereafter it appears that some 5 million shares were transferred out with a view to placement in the designated account with the balance of 493,708 shares remaining at Phillips. There was some dispute as to whether the 5 million shares went to or remained in the designated account. Two features of the documentation were the subject of argument: - a) The history printout showed the shares that had been lodged with the Bank of New York in London. b) The bank statements produced by the Defendants showed the shares to be deposited with Credito Artigiana. It was the Defendant's case that the apparent anomalies were easily explained. Both Banco Aparta and Credito Artigiana were said to be part of the Credito Valtellinese Group and Bank of New York was the group's custodian. Another important feature of the original deposit of the shares was the question of whether, and if so when, Mr Kelly had disposed of some 60,000 shares out of the balance of 493,708. What emerged by the time of the trial, and was in due course admitted by Mr Kelly in his oral evidence, was that 60,000 shares had been sold as early as 1 March 2004 for a total of £102,000. I revert to both these topics in due course. By mid-March, Mr Kelly indicated that the loan monies would be available shortly but despite frequent reminders from Mr Christopher Livingstone-Raper, a director of Battlebridge who had executed the loan agreement on Battlebridge's behalf, no funds had been furnished by Amala by the end of April. On 28 April a meeting took place between Mr Livingstone-Raper and Mr Kelly, the outcome of which formed the centrepiece of the dispute in this action. It was Battlebridge's case that it was agreed at that meeting as follows: - i) Amala would advance £2million out of the loan amount upon execution of the promissory note, the balance to be advanced within two months so as to permit Mr Kelly to carry out 'checks' on TDM: ii) the collateral would be reduced to 5million shares, the balance of 493,708 shares to be returned forthwith. It was the Defendant's case that it was agreed: i) the sum of £2million would be advanced immediately; ii) the balance was conditional on checks to be carried out by Mr Kelly proving satisfactory; iii) (at a subsequent meeting) that all the shares not held by Phillips were to be returned, being only 433,708 in total. There ensued a considerable delay before any of the extra shares were returned. It must be noted at passing that at some stage during June the TDM shares were suspended for about 2 weeks. On 9 June Mr Livingstone-Raper sent an e-mail which put Battlebridge's stance very clearly: - "... what is the problem Joseph, please advise when a) the 493708 shares are to be delivered to Battlebridge account... b) the remainder of the funds under the agreement are to be delivered." Mr Livingstone-Raper's further chasers for the return of the shares and the provision of the loan monies were contained in a series of e-mails, telephone conversations and faxes. Running short of patience on 8th July Mr Livingstone-Raper wrote as follows: - "You have failed to respond to all of my e-mails, phone calls and faxes, so I am formally writing to you with a number of requests. Upon the signing of the Collateral Limited Recourse Loan Agreement, dated 28th January 2004 I expected that a number of things would happen. Sadly Amala Equities Limited have still not fully complied with the terms of the agreement hence I write to you to request that you remedy them. The following actions still need to be done: - 1. To forward the full value of the loan as per Clause 2.1. 2. Amala to return 493,708 shares in 3DM as you only pledged 5,000,000 and not the total of 5,493,708 to pledge the full 5,493.708 shares in 3DM as set out in appendix A of the agreement. 3. An explanation as to why you kept in an account at Phllips Securities (UK) Ltd the 493,708 shares. 4. An explanation as to why you have traded at least 60,000 of these shares for your own personal gain. 5. Why the 5 million shares have been moved from the designated account to an account at the Bank of New York nominees, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement. ... " .... Battlebridge Group Ltd expects you to remedy these breaches otherwise it shall consider terminating the agreement and seek damages for losses suffered." But it was not until September 2004 that some 433,708 TDM shares were re-registered with Amala and it was not until 8 November that any written response from Mr Kelly to Mr Livingstone-Raper's complaints was received: - "I have been travelling in the past week and therefore unable to reply before now. I am willing to have an amicable discussion to resolves issues; however, while you are using language that incorporates legal threats I cannot envisage an amicable dialogue taking place..." Despite this proposition, on the 24 November there was a further meeting between Mr Kelly and Mr Livingstone-Raper. Mr Livingstone-Raper's contemporary note of that meeting, as despatched to his solicitors, reads in part as follows: - "... 2. He was happy to talk about the position where we were as regards to the loan. He agreed that the initial £2million advance of the loan should have been followed with the remainder. His reasoning was that he was unsure whether 3DM Worldwide was a pump and dump company and was protecting his client i.e. the one he borrowed the funds from to do the non-recourse loan with us. 3. I said I understood his position but it didn't reflect upon the agreement we had and that he had breached the terms of it. 4. I mentioned that we were willing to pursue this through the Civil Courts and if necessary make a formal complaint to the appropriate authority if advised by our lawyers.... 6. When asked he said the remainder of the money was in an Esco account and had not been touched. 7. When asked he denied that he had not traded a single share out of the Phillip's securities account that held the remainder of the Battlebridge stock... 8. His excuse for not contacting me was that he had been contacted by the FSA who were enquiring into this loan agreement and they had told him not to contact us. 9. He said another reason for not forwarding the second part of the loan amount was because we had suspended our stock of 2 weeks and not informed him..." Mr Livingstone-Raper repeated this account of the meeting in a letter to Mr Kelly dated 3 December, adding expressions of disbelief as to the alleged FSA enquiry. In response Mr Kelly, in a letter dated 31 January 2005, made the principal point that in his judgment the original stock price was inflated. The letter went on to make an offer for a further loan of £1million but on different terms to that contained in the loan agreement. The Witnesses As I have indicated, the case largely turns on the outcome of the meeting between Mr Kelly and Mr Livingstone-Raper in April 2004. The trial was thus taking place nearly 2½ years later. The witness's actual recollection of events must predictably have dimmed. In these circumstances, I respectfully endorse the observations of Lord Justice Robert Geoff in The Ocean Frost [1958] 1 Lloyd's Reps 1. at p.57: - "It is frequently very difficult to tell whether a witness is telling the truth or not; and where there is a conflict of evidence such as there was in the present case, reference to the objective facts and documents, to the witness's motives and to the overall probabilities, can be a very great assistance to a judge in ascertaining the truth." That said, I should express my impressions of the two witnesses who attended that meeting: - a) Mr Livingstone-Raper struck me as a straight-forward and responsive witness in whose evidence I could place confidence particularly where consistent with the documents. b) Mr Kelly, on the other hand, struck me as a particularly unsatisfactory and evasive witness, all the more and unconvincing as his evidence was seldom supported by the contemporary material. £1.69 million The major dispute centred on the question whether the balance of the loan was, as Mr Kelly contends, conditional on the satisfactory outcome of his checks on TDM. Absent such a condition, it is common ground that, after allowing for the engagement fee of £156,900 as prescribed by Clause 3.1 of the Agreement, Battelbridge is entitled to judgment for the balance. I have no difficulty in rejecting the existence of any such condition for the payment of the balance of the loan: a) Despite numerous demands by Mr Livingtone-Raper in the correspondence for payment of the balance of the loan, at no stage did Mr Kelly ever respond to the effect that the balance was not due because the checks were either incomplete or unsatisfactory. Indeed in his final letter, responding to Mr Livingstone-Raper's detailed reasoning for payment of the balance, there is no suggestion by Mr Kelly that the money was not due, simply that the original agreement was based on an excessive share price. b) Although it is pleaded that payment of the balance was conditional on these checks, there is not a word of support for that proposition in Mr Kelly's witness statement. c) The whole concept of a variation to limit the drawdown makes little commercial sense: although the loan sum was to be reduced by 40%, the share capital was to be reduced by only 10% or so and, even more strikingly, the sum secured by the promissory note was to remain at £3.69million. d) For the sake of completeness, I accept Mr Livingston-Raper's evidence that he was only minded to forebear pressing for the full loan in April because Mr Kelly "held all the cards". It follows that Battlebridge is entitled to payment of the balance of the loan subject to the engagement fee. 60,000 shares It is common ground now that some 493,708 shares should have been returned. It also appears to be accepted that there was no basis upon which Mr Kelly could have legitimately sold 60,000 of those shares. They were sold before any advance had been made, let alone before any interest had accrued. Indeed, the striking lack of frankness in regard to the sale of these shares reflects seriously on the honesty of Mr Kelly: a) The pleaded case was both that the 60,000 shares formed part of the collateral and "that the 60,000 shares were retained" because the Claimants had failed to pay any interest on the loan. b) In the further information furnished under CPR Part 18, the Defendants asserted that the shares were used "as security for the hedge position". c) In his statement Mr Kelly stated "I decided to hold back 60,000 shares pending payment of the interest which Mr Livingstone-Raper had promised at our meeting in May". The reality was that the shares had been sold in early March. The kindest thing that could be said is that this was in anticipation of the engagement service fee. Be that as it may it is clear that Battlebridge is entitled to the value of the shares thus converted in the sum of £102,000. Collateral shares I return to the question whether the shares are in the designated account. The documentation is unquestionably thin and confusing and this in large part is attributable to the failure of the Defendants to give proper disclosure. I am not persuaded that the shares have not been put in the designated account but, given the history of this matter, I nonetheless am minded to grant the injunction sought by Battlebridge as contained in paragraph 15 of the Particulars of Claim to the effect that the Defendant should continue to hold the shares in the designated account. Counterclaim I can deal with the counterclaim even more briefly. This is a non-recourse loan. The Defendants are not entitled to a monetary judgment but only to look to the collateral shares as a source of any legitimate remedy. I say no more about it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/1/2006
09:48
jonwig: Adie2001. Under the terms of the loan agreement, a weekly RNS would have been required whenever a repayment in shares was made: simply to allow listing of the new shares. Today's RNS simplifies things for the company, in that an RNS needs to be issued monthly ("blocklisting" shares issued in that previous month). There will be no RNS if payment is made in cash; there will be an extra RNS if more than the announced maximum number of blockisting shares is issued - this could happen if the TDM share price dives. It ought to be possible to work out the cash:shares split for the month from the number of new shares listed and the share price history. I won't bother myself, but it might be marginally more interesting than watching paint dry, as a poster said. Apart from that, today's RNS contains nothing new.
3dm Worldwide share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:42 V: D:20161210 14:37:31