Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Meldex LSE:MDX London Ordinary Share GB0032681628 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 7.09p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0.00 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Health Care Equipment & Services - - - - 15.16

Meldex (MDX) Latest News

Real-Time news about Meldex (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
More Meldex News
Meldex Takeover Rumours

Meldex (MDX) Share Charts

1 Year Meldex Chart

1 Year Meldex Chart

1 Month Meldex Chart

1 Month Meldex Chart

Intraday Meldex Chart

Intraday Meldex Chart

Meldex (MDX) Discussions and Chat

Meldex Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
09/12/201611:46Meldex 2010 - could this be it?87,442.00
08/12/201615:57The Meldex Fraud(Moderated)5,076.00
19/8/201611:16Who Removed the Meldex Fraud Threads?3.00
12/12/201522:04Tracking Meldex into the Future196.00
19/8/201517:53The Meldex Fraud1,817.00

Add a New Thread

Meldex (MDX) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Meldex trades in real-time

Meldex (MDX) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
22/9/2016
09:02
golly blackwell: Blimey! I've just seen the share price for GKP, the last time I looked at was about 5p. I imagine that avatars are taking that well.
18/3/2016
10:16
avatar333: Were you aware that the share price of Gulf Keystone is currently around 8(eight)p, Golly?
08/12/2015
14:44
chay01: From: Chay Andrew To: foi@fca.org.uk; colin.evans@cib.gsi.gov.uk; enforcement.technical@cib.gsi.gov.uk; enquiries@bis.gsi.gov.uk Subject: RE: Freedom of Information: Right to know request Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:19:50 +0000 The following is copied to the Insolvency Service (Company Investigation Branch) & DBIS – request to forward the information to The Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade Dear Susan Currington, Following previous communication I wish to present to the FCA a number of documents in relation to criminal activity surrounding Meldex International Plc (“MDX”) (in liquidation) during the period May 2007 to December 2008. The directors of MDX, at the time of collapse, were as follows but the web of corruption clearly spreads well beyond this list: Richard Trevillion, Stephen Martin, Alan Clarke, James Murray, Stewart Atkins, Peter Ibbetson, Hiral Patel, Helmut Kerschbaumer and Klaus Kuehne. The following are former professional advisors of MDX and should be included in any subsequent investigation: Nomura, FinnCap and Houlihan Lokey. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and enclosed files (Annex 1-20 plus additional documents) and provide feedback on any investigations the FCA will conduct and possible action that will be taken against any individuals. Heavy financial losses have been collectively suffered by circa 5,500 MDX shareholders and the FCA has a duty to fully investigate all evidence presented and take appropriate action. I believe there should be more transparency and accountability from the FCA and will actively pursue this issue at the highest possible level. In my opinion, MDX investors were clearly deceived into investing or retaining investment in MDX and those decisions (and subsequent losses) would not have occurred had we been properly informed with accurate and complete information, supplied in accordance with legal requirements. Again in my opinion, a false market clearly exited due to false and misleading announcements (including false accounting and misrepresented product pipeline and technology status) made to the stock market. The enclosed documents are not all original versions so I would urge you to obtain original copies, where appropriate, via the liquidator; McTear Williams & Wood (contact: SaraShreeve@mw-w.com). The following consists of three parts: (1) a summary of the relevant background (2) a summary of evidence provided, and (3) collective loss caused to MDX investors. Relevant documents are listed in sections below and are annexed to this letter. Regards, Charles Andrew 1. Background Meldex was a drug and biotechnology development company whose shares were admitted to the Alternative Investment Market ("AIM"). Trading in its shares was suspended on 18 December 2008 and it entered administration on 23 September 2010. Prior to this, Meldex shares were one of the most-traded shares on AIM and highly visible to the market. Focus of FCA investigation is primarily requested from the Company’s activities during the period May 2007 – December 2008. Commencing mid-2007 Meldex embarked on an aggressive strategy to acquire businesses and products within the healthcare sector. The Company used its shares, cash, and cash from placing its shares to finance the implementation of its strategy. Key to the success of its strategy was the maintenance of a high share price and high liquidity in its shares. The Company frequently reported its activities to the market via the RNS. The Company is entirely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of any announcement it makes using the RNS and is obligated by AIM Rules in particular and the FSA (now FCA) generally to ensure that an announcement fully discloses any and all facts that could have an influence on investment decisions and not create a false market in its shares. In January 2008 the Company received an approach from Aquisitek Limited which caused the Company to enter an Offer Period. The Company appointed Houlihan Lokey as its financial advisor for any resultant transaction and did so within so short a space of time that it is clear that the Company failed to properly conduct a selection process one would expect of a public company in appointing a financial advisor. Following the appointment of Houlihan Lokey the Company was negligent in failing to manage the activities of Houlihan Lokey which caused a false market to be created in the Company’s shares. In November 2008 the Company’s Nominated Advisor (“NOMAD”) caused the Company to employ David Newton ACA, FSI, an independent consultant, to report to the Company’s Directors regarding the accuracy of regulated announcements. Key findings of the report highlight, inter alia, potential and probable breaches of AIM Rules 10,11,17,26 and 31.The Company has never addressed the findings of the report and did not comply with the report’s recommendation to correct prior misleading announcements it had made to the market. A copy of David Newton’s report is attached at Annex 1. 2. Summary of evidence provided 2.1 Offer period On 14 January 2008, at 3.21 P.M. Meldex received an approach triggering the beginning of an Offer Period under the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers. The approach was from Aquisitek Limited. Houlihan Lokey was engaged as financial advisor to Meldex on 16 January 2008, less than 48 hours after the approach from Aquisitek Limited. The speed of the appointment is a clear indication that no formal selection process from a range of financial advisors was employed in selecting Houlihan Lokey. This is in line with our understanding of the close friendship that existed between Mr McKay and Mr Trevillion, the then CEO of Meldex. The RNS announcement published by the Company on 16 January 2008 announcing Houlihan Lokey's appointment as Meldex's financial adviser included a paragraph about Houlihan Lokey's standing, stating that it was "ranked as the No.1 M&A adviser for U.S. transactions under $1 billion. ... [and that] It annually serves more than 1,000 clients ranging from closely held companies to Global 500 corporations". Therefore, from the start of the engagement, significant emphasis was placed on Houlihan Lokey's reputation and expertise. The engagement letter between Meldex and Houlihan Lokey confirmed that Houlihan Lokey was to act as Meldex's exclusive financial advisor in connection with any approach, potential offer or offer to acquire the issued share capital of Meldex or another acquisition or merger involving Meldex. Under the retainer, Houlihan Lokey's services included reviewing Meldex's financial condition and prospects, assisting Meldex in soliciting indications of interest regarding an offer and assisting in Meldex's preparation of the public documents required in connection with any offer. The engagement letter further provided that additional services that were not contained in the retainer (specifically the provision of a formal valuation opinion) would only be provided under a second engagement letter. The engagement letter is attached at Annex 2. Note subsection (b) ("Success Fee") of section 3 ("Fees and Expenses") of the engagement letter in which Houlihan Lokey stood to earn considerable additional fees beyond its retainer should a transaction complete with equity value (as defined in the engagement letter) in excess of £167m, £192m or £217m. Following its engagement, Houlihan Lokey began providing the services set out in its engagement letter with gusto. The conduct that forms the basis of the claims does amongst other matters fall squarely within the activities that Houlihan Lokey was retained to perform and which the Company is negligent in its failure to control. The principal areas arising from the Company’s failure to control the activities of Houlihan Lokey that give rise to grounds for complaint include: i. The co-authorship by Houlihan Lokey of misleading and inaccurate RNS announcements approved by the Company; and ii. An aggressive and deliberately misleading sales pitch in various communications between Mr McKay and Mr Scholl (a private investor in the Company) including the investor presentation which Houlihan Lokey was distributing with the Company’s approval (and which is referred to in more detail below). 2.2 Announcements to the market As part of its duties, Houlihan Lokey regularly co-authored RNS announcements that the Company approved and released to the market. The Company is primarily and solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all announcements made to the market. The RNSs on 29 February 2008, 14 March 2008, 29 April 2008 and 1 August 2008 in particular contain negligent mis-statements. The full announcements are attached at Annex 3 to this letter. The relevant sections are extracted below (with our emphasis): (a) 29 February 2008 [Meldex] has received a conditional proposal to acquire Meldex which, in the opinion of the Special Committee of the Board of Directors that was formed to evaluate its strategic options, significantly undervalues [Meldex]. Consequently it has been rejected. (b) 14 March 2008 Launch in US of new range of cough/cold products, based on advances with TabWrap and FastWrap, planned for 2008/9 season. Meldex, in conjunction with its preferred OTC partner in the US, is pursuing a dual growth strategy for its products and developments involving its FastWrap technology. Meldex confirms that NRobeTM, Meldex's powder enrobing technology that has been licensed out to FMC Magenta, is delivering royalty payments under the terms of the amended agreements. The commercialisation of the enabling technology is progressing successfully. (c) 29 April 2008 On 14 January 2008, Meldex received an approach from Aquisitek which stated that it intended to make an offer for the entire share capital of the Company. On 15 February 2008, Meldex received a proposal from Aquisitek, which stated that it was prepared to submit a conditional bid for the entire share capital of the Company. Neither communication from Aquisitek provided details as to credible financing sources in support of any such transaction to the satisfaction of the Board of Directors of Meldex. Furthermore, the proposal was subject to receiving full due diligence access to confidential information. Despite requests from Meldex's advisers, Aquisitek failed to execute an appropriate confidentiality agreement to facilitate receipt of such information and also declined to provide any details on financing sources... In light of the highly conditional nature of the proposal, no visibility as to financing, refusal to sign a customary confidentiality agreement and a proposal which undervalued the Company, the Special Committee of the Board of Directors discontinued discussions with and subsequently rejected the proposal from Aquisitek whose identity was not disclosed at that time. (d) 1 August 2008 Revenue growth in H1 2008 of 270% to circa £23.5 million from £8.7 million in H1 2007: results in line with Meldex's budget and towards the top end of market guidance. Further cross-fertilisation of Group products across geographic infrastructure providing increased scope for revenue growth, for example, the Soluleaves product Melatonia in Italy, Melprotect in Germany and Menoflavon in France and other EU countries. Increased demand and commercial interest in Group 'lifestyle' product launches such as the NRT Soluleaves product, DAOsin, Phytosulin and the new irritable bowel syndrome "IBS" product. In the CEE region (including partnerships with Walmark a.s. and others) the moving annual total sales rate ("MAT") of the Melbrosin OTC business through 30 June 2008 has increased by almost 400% as compared to the MAT through June 2007. Market feedback for Phytosulin, a product designed for the treatment of symptoms related to metabolic syndrome, suggests it should be marketed with a similar strategy to DAOsin, focused on the Type II diabetes indication, which the Company believes is the largest globally in value terms. The product will be generating revenues in H2 2008 in Austria and Germany. There were significant inaccuracies in respect of these RNS announcements. The representations in the 14 March 2008 RNS were misleading as to the potential use of TabWrap, the status of its US partners and the receipt of royalty payments. Also of concern are the contradictory announcements of both 29 February and 29 April 2008 that confirmed that the Aquisitek bid (of 95p) undervalued Meldex. Not only was this not the case, but we have seen email evidence which shows that Houlihan Lokey insisted on the misleading "undervalue" wording being added to the 29 April 2008 RNS announcement, despite that fact that the board of Meldex explicitly stated that to do so would be untrue. To be clear, this email shows that Houlihan Lokey knowingly insisted on a phrase in a RNS to the market that the board of Meldex considered was misleading. This email explains why the two announcements contain a very different emphasis on the reasons for the rejection. Despite the Company informing Houlihan Lokey in writing that the use of “undervalue221; wording was untrue it approved the release of this false statement to the market. We attach at Annex 4 a copy of the email chain. The RNS releases for 29 February and 29 April 2008 stated that the proposal was rejected. In fact, the proposal was withdrawn. This is a significant inaccuracy and one that Houlihan Lokey and the Company was well aware of. Attached is a copy of an email from Mr Muncaster to Mr McKay indicating that the bid would be withdrawn by the close of 28 February 2008 at Annex 5. In late 2008, Mr David Newton was engaged by Meldex to conduct a review of the historic public announcements made by Meldex and whether they were accurate. Mr Newton was independent of the Meldex board. Mr Newton's report provides an independent basis for concluding that the RNS announcements to the market (including those co-authored by Houlihan Lokey) were misleading. 2.3 Communications between Mr Scholl and Mr McKay There were a number of telephone conversations and emails between Mr McKay and Mr Scholl from 18 January 2008 to 1 May 2008. A number of representations were made to Mr Scholl which we now know were not true. Mr Scholl, using an alias “I-_AM_A_WALRUS”, posted very detailed extracts of his conversations and email exchanges with Mr McKay to public bulletin boards read by many shareholders of the Company. Key extracts from the telephone conversations and email included (with our emphasis added): (i) 18 January 2008 Mr Scholl: I, along with some long term shareholders, some with a high net worth like Art Williams, would like to see the company stay intact ... Mr Scholl: Art Williams III is the son of Arthur Lynch Williams Jr, the noted billionaire. Art, myself, and many others want to see Meldex's share price rise and see the company become a world class drug delivery company Mr McKay: Robert, Houlihan Lokey is the number one Mergers and Acquisitions Company in this sector and have an excellent client list and reputation to recommend us. Houlihan Lokey has been retained by Meldex to explore all options available to the Company at this time. Mr McKay: It seems to me that Art might have an opportunity here. (ii) 19 Feb 2008 Mr McKay: Robert, we are nearing completion of the Meldex valuation and I said I would call you. Mr Scholl: Thanks Brian, I am quite interested in seeing what your firm has put together. Mr McKay: Before we can proceed along those lines, I have an NDA that has to be executed. We need that before you can review our report. I can have it emailed to you. ... Mr McKay: We really believe this opportunity will be attractive to you. I'll send you some information after our call. ... Mr McKay: Robert Meldex will be sold. There are already multiple parties interested. Mr Scholl: That's very good to hear. What do you think it will be sold for? Mr McKay: A couple of pounds give or take a few pence. ... Mr Scholl: And you just said you already determined there are valid parties interested in Meldex? Mr McKay: Yes (By email from Mr McKay to Mr Scholl, a copy of which is attached at Annex 6): Some of Meldex's key attributes include ... Proven, patented technology systems through XGEL polymer platform ... A strong development pipeline, with many new releases due in the short and medium term ... 44 products in development (40 due for launch in the next 24 months) ... Extensive in house sales and marketing infrastructure, with an existing cash generating product portfolio ... Powerful commercialisation potential, with a wide range of prospective technology applications. (iii) 4 March 2008 Mr McKay: Robert, Meldex is going to be sold. If you and Art do have an interest, then we do need to get the NDA's executed promptly. As indicated in the RNS, several additional parties have approached Meldex. (iv) 11 March 2008 Mr McKay: Robert, multiple parties have already seen this information and several are at level 3. They understand the return on investment will be massive in as little as two years. ... Mr McKay: I expect the "Data Room" will be closed soon. If you and the Williams' want to sign the NDA and get in the picture then now is the time to act. If you want to talk it over with the Williams' I could hold the data room open. I can also give you a quick heads up if we are about to consider an offer and give you an opportunity to execute the NDA and review the data. ... Mr McKay: Robert, as I said before, Meldex will be sold. That is a fact. ... Mr McKay: Robert, I am not going to say anything negative about the Nomura analyst's report on Meldex, but we have complete access to everything Meldex has and have been able to put together a very comprehensive picture. For instance, do you know what the revenue figures will be for Meldex in 2008? Mr Scholl: Yes, Brian I think I do based on the Nomura Code Broker's note, about £60 million. And given Meldex's RNS's late last year about new deals and new products coming to market, I would not be surprised if Meldex beat that number. Mr McKay: I think you are going to be very surprised at Meldex's performance. Do you have any idea what the revenues for 2009 and 2010 will be? 2009 revenues are going to be much better than 2008 and the 2010 revenues will be massively bigger than 2009. In fact 2010 will be a watershed year for Meldex. 2010 really begins the serious growth phase for Meldex based on their product pipeline. And I feel these numbers are ringers. I don't think I could say that about any company I've ever worked with. Mr Scholl: That's really incredible. It's much higher than Nomura's estimates. Are you counting on acquisitions to hit those numbers? Mr McKay: No acquisitions are included in our forecasts. They are based on organic growth within the Company. Meldex has an incredible product pipeline coming to market over the next several years. ... Mr McKay: [T]he revenue growth can be funded from internal cash flows. I have never seen a company whose IP is so opaque compared to the public domain information. The scope of the review in our report covers over 46 pipeline drugs, all third party agreements, and all the developed projects Meldex is involved in. I am actually amazed at the data in our report. It is much more comprehensive than what the shareholders or Nomura have access to. The public at large simply have the tip of the iceberg to look at in their valuation of this company. We have been provided with a chain of emails commencing with an email from Mr Simon Raynor (then a Director of the Houlihan Lokey London office) to Mr Steve Martin (then a Director of Meldex) dated 1 May 2008. Mr Martin raised the issue of Mr Scholl quoting a £2 share price on his bulletin board following conversations with Houlihan Lokey. He informed Mr Raynor that there were reports of conversations with "Houlihan Lokey over the value of the business stating that it is significantly undervalued compared with what is out in the public domain. H&L are being dragged into all of this". In response, Mr Raynor replied that "We had made the connection between the Walrus and Scholl as Brian had spoken to him and told him something that we had told no-one else, which subsequently appeared on the boards word for word". This confirms that Mr McKay, on behalf of the Meldex, was having one-on-one conversations about Meldex with a particular shareholder in breach of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers and that the Company was aware these conversations had taken place and that the price of £2 per share stated by Mr McKay was false. A copy of the email chain is attached at Annex 7. Mr McKay and the Company can have been in no doubt about the importance of avoiding selective disclosure of information to shareholders - it would seem that he had correspondence with the Takeover Panel in relation to this specific issue. In an email dated 31 July 2008 to directors of the Company he states that the Takeover Panel expressed "concerns over selective disclosures to certain shareholders". He also states that "the Panel is taking this very seriously, and is conducting an investigation with a view to implementing disciplinary procedures". Mr McKay then goes on to state that "THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO SELECTIVE CONTACT WITH SHAREHOLDERS, PARTICULARLY AS THE COMPANY IS IN AN OFFER PERIOD". A copy of the email chain is attached at Annex 8. 2.4 Other Misrepresentations 2.4.1 Houlihan Lokey presentation approved by the Company On 19 February 2008, Mr McKay sent Mr Scholl an undated Powerpoint presentation which was provided to recipients "in connection with the consideration of a possible transaction involving Meldex". This presentation contained inaccurate representations: "Proven, patented technology with XGel polymer platform"; "Strong development pipeline, with over 40 products due for launch in the next 24 months"; In relation to TabWrap, "Huge development potential, with flexibility to adapt to multiple applications" and "Grant of core TabWrap patents approved in August 2007"; "44 products currently in development, 18 near term <6 months to launch, 22 Mid- term 6 months to 24 months and 4 Long term >24 months"; and "Sustainable revenues with mix of own sales, up-front/milestone payments, manufacturing fees and royalty income". These representations were grossly misleading. One of the most egregious examples is the misleading references to the technologies in the XGel Polymer platform which were at a very primitive stage of development at that time. Further, the timelines given for product development was never achievable given the state of Meldex's facilities and resources. The presentation is attached at Annex 9. Houlihan Lokey and the Company had no proper basis on which to make these representations. 2.4.2 AGM Houlihan Lokey accompanied the Meldex board in its presentation to investors at Meldex's AGM on 26 June 2008. Houlihan Lokey had a role in reviewing and approving the presentation. The presentation painted a very optimistic view of Meldex's financials and product pipeline which was not justified by its true prospects. Reference is made to the commercialisation and first orders for products which were actually at an embryonic state of development. The script that accompanied the presentation also brazenly stated that Meldex was immune to the product pipeline issues which affected larger pharmaceutical companies. The Company made this presentation with the knowledge that it was untrue in many aspects, particularly in reference to its ability to achieve the projected sales revenues and profits shown in the presentation. The AGM presentation and its supporting script are attached at Annex 10. 2.4.3 Houlihan Lokey and the Company had no basis for its representations Houlihan Lokey and Mr McKay had numerous dealings with shareholders of Meldex and led them to believe that Meldex had exceptional development potential and high current share value. We now know that these representations could never have been true due to (i) the fundamental flaws in Meldex's finances and (ii) an embryonic product and technology pipeline which was not even vaguely in line with the Company’s and Houlihan Lokey's optimistic representations. Houlihan Lokey was tasked with reviewing both of these areas under its engagement letter. These issues would have been obvious to any competent financial adviser and the Company was negligent in failing to control representations made by Houlihan Lokey. 2.4.4 Meldex's financial position It would have been obvious to any competent financial advisor that Meldex was in a very weak financial position in 2008. Meldex was delisted from AIM on 4 March 2009 and is now in liquidation. There were very clear warning signs commencing September 2007 continuing throughout Houlihan Lokey's engagement that Meldex was fundamentally unsound and Houlihan Lokey knew about these and the Company failed to control Houlihan Lokey’s representations made to the contrary: i. Meldex did not have the working capital to properly fund its acquisition strategy in 2006 and 2007. Having made a large number of acquisitions Meldex dramatically increased its overhead costs but had received little in gross profit contributions from the acquired companies; ii. Meldex was not paying its trade creditors and the employees of its subsidiaries as and when required to do so; iii. Management accounts indicated cash-flow problems, trade losses and missed budget targets; iv. Meldex was having to issue equity and request facility increases in order to satisfy its debts; v. Potential purchasers were telling Houlihan Lokey and the Meldex board throughout the offer period that they did not see value to Meldex beyond the share prices that it traded at; and vi. In April 2008 Meldex breached its banking covenants with Fortis Bank and failed to report this to the market. 2.4.5 Meldex's product pipeline Houlihan Lokey had extensive experience in the biotechnology industry and was tasked with reviewing the product pipeline under the engagement letter. We have had access to a copy of the Supplementary Information Package ("SIP") dated March 2008 and produced by Houlihan Lokey, a copy of which is attached at Annex 11. This document sets out the basis of Houlihan Lokey's revenue forecast of Meldex's product pipeline. The methodology is flawed, not in line with the market's standard approach to valuation and includes probability weightings that were aggressively optimistic. Such a document can give no valid grounds for Houlihan Lokey to make the representations that it did and which were approved by the Company. The SIP shows how dangerous it was for Houlihan Lokey to conclude that Meldex was due for a (according to Mr McKay) "massive" increase in revenues. The projected revenue growth by 2017 is predicated almost entirely on the pipeline drugs. By contrast, the projected revenue growth for existing products was marginal. A further risk exposed by the SIP was that, of the pipeline drugs, only three were to contribute to the main bulk of the projected revenue. There were multiple development obstacles and issues with the product pipeline. A Claimant Group have undertaken very significant analysis of the product pipeline and highlights only a few of the problems below. Houlihan Lokey should have been aware of these flaws and caveated the representations it made and the Company was negligent in allowing such representations to be made: i. The XGel technology Platforms were not even close to being commercially exploitable. In particular, TabWrap, which was time and again said to be commercially exploitable was at a very primitive stage of development and faced a number of obstacles. We have been provided with a letter from GB Innomech Limited dated 4 September 2007 which highlights the key development problems with the TabWrap proof of principle machine and states the concerns that GB Innomech Limited had with the TabWrap market announcements. This is attached at Annex 12; ii. Meldex did not have the resources in place to develop the products it purported to. In particular, its facilities and staff numbers were very limited and its Tampa plant was not registered to US pharmaceutical standards; iii. The drug referred to as DBP 121/122 was subject to a "volunteer pilot study" which was said to be "very positive". The study was said in the SIP to relate to "mild to moderate smokers". The "volunteer pilot study" was included in an RNS dated 31 May 2007 and specifically refrred to in an RNS dated 7 November 2007 copies of which are attached as Annexe 13. We have had access to the volunteer pilot study documents which included Ed Nowak as one of the patients. Mr Nowak is not and never has been a smoker and did not take part in the "volunteer pilot study" or any other study on the subject matter carried out by the Company. The Company falsified the "volunteer pilot study" and in doing so knowingly created a false market in its shares. A copy Mr Nowak’s alleged results from the "volunteer pilot study" is attached at Annexe 14. iv. The order for the drug referred to as DBP 171 (Soluleaves nicotine strip) was commercially unviable; 50,000 packs of 20 strips were ordered at a price of 50p per pack, although it was known at the time that the product could not be produced for less than $0.07 per strip (i.e. $1.40 per pack). Moreover, the product could never have been commercialised because it had been shown to be unstable. 2.5 Scope of Houlihan Lokey's role Houlihan Lokey was not retained to produce a comprehensive company valuation. At a time when Mr McKay was quoting a £2 per share price to Mr Scholl and referencing the "Houlihan Lokey valuation", he was retained under an engagement letter that specifically ruled out "the provision of a specific valuation opinion" from the agreed services. The truth is that Houlihan Lokey was never engaged in a serious valuation of Meldex or its revenue potential. An email from Anthony Clegg of Houlihan Lokey to Richard Trevillion (CEO of Meldex) stated that Mr Clegg was not aware of the independent valuation that Mr Richard Trevillion referred to (which according to Mr Trevillion priced Meldex at £1.86 per share – in line with the £2/share valuation told to Mr Scholl). Mr Clegg stated that "while we did some high level calculations back in January, we don't have anything that would be applicable at the current time". A second email dated 19 September 2008 from Mr Raynor to Mr Martin confirmed that "we never had any realistic numbers with which to go to work". Houlihan Lokey had no proper basis whatsoever for making the representations as to the value or prospects of Meldex. Meldex was aware that there was no basis for any valuation provided by Houlihan Lokey and it failed to control the dissemination of such a valuation. Copies of these emails are enclosed at Annex 15. 2.5 False Accounting 2.5.1 Pre-Close Trading Update 1 August 2008 On 1 August 2008 the Company issued via RNS a Pre-Close Trading Update. A copy of the RNS is attached as Annexe 16. We have had access to an Expert’s Report carried out by the Forensic Accounting Team of KPMG. The report concludes that sales revenues of c.€3.7 million and gross profit of c.€400,000 should not have been included in the sales revenue and profit figures given by the Company in the RNS. / The reason for this conclusion is that there is no evidence that the related transactions occurred. A copy of the Expert’s Report and attachments is attached as Annexe 17. We have had access to other documents used by the Company in preparing the trading update which show that, in total, c.€10 million sales revenue transactions similar and in addition to those referred to above should not have been included in the sales revenue and profit figures given by the Company in the RNS. Copies of these documents and the Company’s financial statements for the year 2008 as audited by KPMG are attached as Annexe 18. Following publication of the Pre-Close Trading Update comments appeared in the Daily Mail that, inter alia, Meldex would announce a profit warning, a fall in sales revenues and a cash call and that certain of its activities were under investigation by Kroll Associates. Certain members of a Claimant Group spoke with Company’s CEO to seek, and were given, assurances that there would be no profit warning, no warning about sales revenues and no cash call. Certain members of the Claimant Group then emailed the Company’s Public Relations firm. The email from certain members of the Claimant Group asked the PR company to have the directors and the secretary as a group confirm that the assurances given by the CEO can be relied upon. The email stated that “in the absence of a reply, I will continue to hold [shares] on the understanding that statements made to me and others are true and that all directors are aware of the same”. Those certain members of the Claimant Group received no further comment to its email and continued to hold their shares in reliance on the assurances given. A copy of the email to the Company’s PR company is attached as Annexe 19. 2.5.2 Interim Financial Statement 30 September 2008 On 30 September 2008 the Company issued via RNS its interim financial statement. The Company included in its sales revenue and profit figures transactions referred to in 2.1, which it should not have done and which created a false market in its shares. A copy of the interim financial statement is attached as Annexe 20. 2.6 Legal Claims 2.6.1 False Representations In his conversations and other written communications (including the PPT presentation) with Mr Scholl, Mr McKay made a number of assertive representations about the strength of Meldex's product pipeline and future revenues, the value of Meldex's share price, the strength of interest in Meldex among potential purchasers and the status of Houlihan Lokey's apparent "valuation" of Meldex. These representations were false and exaggerated and approved by the Company. Given Houlihan Lokey and Mr McKay's engagement to review the finances of Meldex, their expertise in the biotech industry and the obvious nature of the problems facing Meldex, it is inconceivable that Houlihan Lokey and Mr McKay did not know the true position when making the statements, it is further inconceivable that the Company did not know that such representations were being made but still failed to control their dissemination. Certainly the statements were made with reckless disregard for their truth. Investors were influenced by Houlihan Lokey's strong reputation and relied on the statements and the fact that they were approved by Meldex when investing in Meldex. When Mr McKay was speaking with Mr Scholl he did so from a position of expertise and knowledge as regards Meldex's finances and drug pipeline. Investors did not have comparable knowledge of Meldex and so placed great reliance on Mr McKay's words as repeated by Mr Scholl on public bulletin boards and as approved by and with the knowledge of the Company. 2.6.2 Negligent Mis-statement In co-authoring RNSs that were designed to update the market, the Company and Houlihan Lokey owed a duty of care to potential Meldex investors not to mis-state the position. This is in light of their position of specialist knowledge about Meldex's financial affairs. The emails exchanged prior to the 29 April 2008 RNS show that the Company and Houlihan Lokey were quite prepared to knowingly make statements to the market that were not correct. The Company therefore clearly breached its duties of care to Meldex investors. 3. Loss Meldex International Plc investors relied on the false or negligent representations made by the Company and Houlihan Lokey and Mr McKay. Owing to Houlihan Lokey's market reputation and financial expertise, and RNSs and other statements approved by the Company, they believed what they were being told. They did so to their detriment by retaining shares that they would otherwise have sold. In some cases further shares were purchased as a result of the Company’s mis-statements and Houlihan Lokey's mis-statements approved by the Company. Investors suffered loss equal to the value of the shares purchased as a consequence of the Company’s representations and/or the value of the shares that would have been sold but for the Company’s false statements. Collectively this amounted to many millions of pounds.
24/10/2015
00:02
boobly: There is an interesting little company on the Aim market called : Plutus Powergen . `Some People` , seem to think that they will make their fortune here , and that the Company has huge unexploited potential which will corner a niche market . The share price is `Apparently` totally unrepresentative of the future value . What could possibly go wrong ? Charles Tatnall, Executive Chairman Charles Tatnall is primarily involved in advising and raising funds for small and medium sized enterprises with varying business activities ranging from advising investment and family wealth companies to reviewing investments and business opportunities together with the management of personal investments. Until 2005 he was consultant to Bolton Group PLC, a UK listed investment company, identifying and conducting due diligence on potential investment and acquisition opportunities from a broad range of industry sectors. These included natural resources, both exploration and production, electronic hardware and software, and biotechnology.Previously he held a number of positions with public companies in North America and Canada, he was a director and founder of several micro-cap North American listed companies being responsible for general corporate governance and all finance areas. Charles was a co-founder and principal of BioProgress Technology Ltd (“BioProgress&#8221;) which was quoted on the NASD regulated OTC market and later migrated to AIM. Charles held the licence for the North American business ofBioProgress though a listed vehicle in North America. Earlier, Charles founded Maceworth Ltd in 1985, a large corporate entertainment company in the UK which operated in the areas of running sporting event tented corporate villages, marquee hire, corporate sponsorship and conferences.
29/6/2015
11:51
bargainbob: I note the Meldex share price is unaffected with the news from Greece.
01/8/2014
11:17
bargainbob: I note the MDX share price is static at 7.09 p
30/10/2013
16:27
jan-mar: M you are over complicating the issue, Trevillion asked Muncaster for help to get the share price up, that is an undisputed fact, the reason for the request is open to different views. My view is and always has been that Trevillion knew the game was coming to an end, he had told shareholders that a product would be on sale by the end of 2007. He knew that there was no product and would be found out. Muncaster started taking a position via ATEK in Meldex, both knowing full well that once the announcement of 3% + was out the share price would continue to rise. Trevillion knew that Muncaster had some huge positions via spreadbets and CFD (You don't need a lot of money on a rising share price to build a position of strength). On the 14th December, someone placed a large sell order late in the day that was traded on Monday 17th December that caused the share price to collapse during that week (96p down to 40p ish) Taking out most spreadbetters at the same time causing a domino effect.. Muncaster never recovered from that week, the bid (fully funded or a con) was a move to get the share price up again. dav37 is absolutely correct, Trevillion then pulled off a masterstroke and created a smokescreen over the entire company by appointing HL. Trevillion outsmarted Muncaster at every turn as he did to everyone else that crossed him when they joined the company, a very shrewd operater. There will be another hundred side issue's that continue to come up from time to time, but there are some simple facts that have been available since the company went under, they are that false RNS's were put to the market and that alone, should have been the focus of all shareholders from day one, this was ans should have been about the demise of Meldex, nothing else.
22/7/2013
14:46
avatar333: UK Banks will move. But where? Your Free Report advfn promos to me 22 Jul 2013 15:15:51 Dear Investor It's that time of the year when the big UK banks report earnings. Share prices will move, which means opportunity for you. Be prepared - download your free report on the UK banks today. Click here. Barclays 30th July, share price up 22% this year * Lloyds 1st August, share price up 44% this year* RBS 2nd August ,share price up 3.79% this year * HSBC 5th August, share price up 13.67% this year* Standard Chartered 6th August, Share price down 3.24% this year* *As of 19th July 2013 US banks reported last week. JP Morgan 12th July- BEAT EXPECTATIONS Wells Fargo 12th July - BEAT EXPECTATIONS Citigroup 15th July - BEAT EXPECTATIONS Goldmans Sachs 16th July - BEAT EXPECTATIONS Bank of America 17th July - BEAT EXPECTATIONS Morgan Stanley - BEAT EXPECTATIONS Should you buying UK banks ahead of reporting, or should you avoid them? Have the gains been over-done, or is there more to go? Click here to download your urgent report for free. You can lose more than your initial investment when trading CFDs and spread betting. The value of shares and the income from them can go down as well as up. Click here to download you free report: 'UK Banks' Kind regards Mike Van Dulken Head of Accendo Markets Research Team info@accendomarketsresearch.com This report is not a personal recommendation and does not take into account your personal circumstances or appetite for risk. Accendo Markets .64 London Wall, London , EC2M 5TPRegistered in England and Wales No. 6417051. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority No. 475285. -- To stop receiving messages from ADVFN Promos click here
23/6/2012
18:12
chay01: Inghu - 17 Jun'08 - 21:25 - 1457 of 1457 It's nice to see that BJM and johnwall have posted their comments on the meeting. I can concur with the list of attendees as stated in BJM post, and that from the outset, the 4 investors made clear statements that we were not there to seek any inside information whatsoever. To be absolutely clear, nothing that wasn't already in the public domain was discussed. My purpose for being at the meeting was to seek better communication between the company and investors (all investors, retail investors and institutions), as this fits well with the aim of the 121 group. There was much discussion about the past communications and its horrible failings. On the whole, the company acknowledge that something needs to be done to improve the current situation. Jim Murray (JM) stated that the company has a new strategy which it intends to make public at the AGM. We were not told what it was. I encouraged him to make it public sooner because the vast majority of retail investors hold shares in nominee accounts and therefore, their deadline for voting via proxy is actually this week sometime, not the AGM itself. JM and Peter Ibbetson (PI) seemed to acknowledge that fact as well. I'm hopefully that we'll hear something but I am also not holding my breathe either. We shall see. The reason that I'm sceptical is that while I admit the JM and PI were receptive of the feedback we provided, there were instances where they obviously didn't not agree with us, and I find that somewhat concerning since the 4 investors present spanned the gamete of the investing community, with a fund manager present, a retain investor (myself), and large retail investor and an institution (ATEK). We all independently agreed on the following point but were rebuffed by HL and the company. They feel that the last RNS (...no rights issue) could not in any form be read to imply that a placing is possible, even when read in conjunction with an unusually strong declining share price For so called experts, HL's comments really amazed me. Also, when discussing the topic of acquisitions at very low SP, the HL rep ask me personally why I cared, it's not my shares that they're giving away. Simultaneously, BJM and myself said "dilution" without skipping a heart beat. Again, I was completely put aback that HL do not understand why we are somewhat upset at low share price acquisitions, which then worries me that they are the advisers to the board. The HL guy was antagonistic to BJM from the start, but it would appear that they know one another from the bid process and so there may be some animosity there. I've asked Jim if they'd consider webcasting the agm, and he said that he'd look into it if there was enough time to achieve it. I have subsequently found 3 webcasting companies (with the help of Hambi) who are free on the day and are able to do it. I have sent that information directly to JM and PI and leave it to them to decide if they'll use the service or not. If they are serious about changing the comms strategy, I would sincerely hope that they take the opportunity to provide the webcast as I'm certain that many shareholders would appreciate it. If the webcast is the place, it would demonstrate to me anyway, that JM is serious about making changes, and that maybe we should give him a chance to lead the board. I've also asked that if there's a powerpoint presentation (or alike) at the AGM, that it too should be made available for download from the company website. PI seemed to really like that idea, and was in general very attentive as to what was being suggested. Personally, I was impressed with him as on several occasions, he openly asked us about how we would like it or what we'd like to see, and more importantly, he attentively listened for the answer. I'm personally unsure if he should be voted out, as suggested by others. There were some comments about the website, and both JM and PI were receptive that it needed improving. Feedback was given by myself as well as BJM. I think that we can expect improvements here. How soon though, I do not know, but JM did appear to want things to move sooner rather than later. The wording of RNS was a contentious issue. The HL rep constantly accused the investors of reading in too much into them, and said that we should read between the lines. Well, we all know that the RNS rarely ever have enough info contained in them, and thus one must read between the lines. The HL rep rejected that. John Wall made the point that many statements in RNSs contradicted other statements in other RNSs and gave several good examples about the SCP to prove his point. I made a comment about incompleteness of many RNSs and gave several examples to prove my point. The HL rep then took that to say that we're getting trapped on the disclosure treadmill and that the solution was to release less news. I said, no, the solution was to release complete and accurate news. That it goes a long way to establishing credibility and confidence. The HL rep accused me of nit-picking small details, to which I replied, that one wrong detail here or there is not a big deal, but when the quantity of these little incorrect or contradictory or misleading or incomplete bits of information stack up in an investors mind, it leads to a lack of confidence and a lack of trust. This fit in well with the point that John Wall as trying to make to the management about trust. Thankfully, JM jumped in with acknowledgement of the point that it was similar to green stamp, that one alone is worthless, but collect hundreds and it's meaningful. I accept that JM and PI understand that attention to detail is important. PI did acknowledge that there were too many products to follows, with 155 of them. We, the investors agreed, that they only needs to follows the significant ones. The rest we aren't really that concerned with. Prioritize which ones you report on, and don't mention the rest. It simplifies the reporting and makes things easier to understand for the investor. So, I feel that I accomplished what I was hoping to accomplish by attending the meeting. I'm hopeful that the company will take it all on board and that we'll see a distinctive change. Fingers crossed. Regarding the other issue raised at the meeting. I did back BJM argument that acquisitions when the share price was low is not in our interest. The company's stated strategy was to continue down the acquisition road. BJM rightfully said that it cannot, and shouldn't, be done when the share price is so low. The currency that we use to buy these companies needs to be fairly valued before we use it. IMO, the company must first concentrate on getting the share price up to a sustainable fair level before it contemplates its next acquisition. The company is now cash generative so there no longer a rush to acquire or die. Acquisitions at any share price is not acceptable. One last point, I mentioned that there were many RNSs quoting that the company was active in achieiving shareholder value. I asked JM how he measured shareholders value. JM replied that it was the share price. Both BJM and myself clarfied what it's not market cap that you're talking about, it's share price. JM confirmed that it was share price. I then asked the same question to PI and he endorsed JM remarks, but added, in the medium term. It would appear that they accept that the problems cannot be fixed overnight but they have a plan. JM did openly say at one point, that we needed to trust him and give him time to make the changes. I do feel that JM does wish to make the changes necessary, and he specifically mentioned that he needed PI and Stewart Adkins on his team. He emphasized that their skills were invaluable to him. So if you back JM, then you should back PI and SA as he is vouching for them. At the moment, I'm inclined to back JM, and this PI and SA as well. One really last point, and final comment is that JM did mentioned that he'd like to see investors more often than just once a year at the agm. He does give the impression that he's serious about his role as Chairman, and wishes to engage with investors. I just hope that he spends equal time with the institutions because we needs them on board, but we need them buying in the open market, and that'll require good communication to start it off.
04/3/2011
17:22
coquille: Here are several inghu posts from mid June '08: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Inghu - 13 Jun'08 - 17:04 - 1158 of 5935 Hi all, I have been in touch with BJM and I have asked if I could attend the Monday meeting as a representative of the 121 group. BJM and Jim M have agreed. To be clear to everyone, the purpose of the meeting is information and communication, which is "broadly" (gotta love that word, right Meldex!) in line with the 121 group's purpose so that's the reason I've agreed to attend the meeting. I'm not giving or allocation or promising any voting weight on behalf of the group to anyone else or for any purpose, so members can be reassured that I'm looking out for their best interests. I'm attending the meeting as a separate representative of the 121 members, as in this case, we have common interests with BJM, ATEK and all other shareholders in wants the mess sorted out to get the share price headed back upwards. I will report back what was discussed. I have taken note of many of the questions reported here, and on the other threads. Unfortunately due to the very short timeframe until the meeting, I'm not going to be able to run a survey of the group and so I hope that you all can trust that I'll ask the right questions on our behalf. In addition to the questions, I will push for Jim to agree for the AGM to be webcasted, or taped and made available for all shareholders, and for the presentation material to also be made available for all investors who could not attend the AGM. I believe that transparency and openness is paramount in the investment world, and will go a long way in trying to bolster the reputation of the company. I will also push for the sequence of the AGM to be such that the resolutions voting occurs, not at the beginning of the AGM, but afterwards following the Q&A session so shareholders can have a chance to grill the Board about last year's performance prior to deciding who gets to keep their jobs or not. I'm open to other suggestions or comments, but keep in mind that the meeting is finite in time and we cannot get into the nitty-gritty of small details so lets not ask questions like that. I think what's of immediate focus is the AGM, the resolutions, and communication strategy. I'm out for the rest of the night but please leave feedback for me on this thread and I'll read it tomorrow. Inghu Inghu - 14 Jun'08 - 13:19 - 1223 of 5934 Thank you all for your comments. They have been noted. I cannot commit that any one question will be asked or answered. I can only say that I'll do my best to represent the group. Inghu Inghu - 14 Jun'08 - 18:14 - 1233 of 5934 blackfox and Chay, I think that RT is a very smart business strategist, but I will openly admit that he's got his faults. The reality is that the current way of running this company after 3 years has resulted in no share price appreciation. When RT took over on May 23, 2005, the share price was 41.5p. Think about that for moment. He has done a great job of preventing the company from going bankrupt but the dilution has been quite significant. Further expansion at this same rate will grow the company, but not the SP, which ultimately is of no use to us as shareholders. EPS needs to remain the focus. Not net profit, not revenues. In the 2007 yearend results pdf explanation, the company listed 5 companies which it believes it should be compared with. These are the companies own words. Well, two of them have market caps SIGNIFICANTLY bigger than MDX's. Why is that? What does the company intend to do to correct that? It starts with the Chairman, because his job is to oversee the Executive of the company. Something has got to change. I don't want to attend the 2009 AGM with the share price still at 39p. I've done that every year for the last 3 years and I'm getting tired of it. So the first port of call is the Chairman of the Board as he's suppose to represent shareholders. That's the purpose of the Monday meeting. After Monday and the reports back, we shareholders will be better informed if we need to take further steps with our voting power at the AGM. One step at a time. Inghu - 16 Jun'08 - 23:05 - 1368 of 5933 I only just got home. Long day riding the rail to and from London. Very tired right now. Meeting was much as to be expected. Nothing earth shattering. They openly admit that communication needs fixing. They claim to have a strategy for it. We shall see. They were willing to listen but were also very defensive of current situation. I'll write a more comprehensive report tomorrow but I'd hope that Barry will provide some more insight tomorrow for you all until I get home from work and can write my report. Inghu - 17 Jun'08 - 21:25 - 1457 of 1457 It's nice to see that BJM and johnwall have posted their comments on the meeting. I can concur with the list of attendees as stated in BJM post, and that from the outset, the 4 investors made clear statements that we were not there to seek any inside information whatsoever. To be absolutely clear, nothing that wasn't already in the public domain was discussed. My purpose for being at the meeting was to seek better communication between the company and investors (all investors, retail investors and institutions), as this fits well with the aim of the 121 group. There was much discussion about the past communications and its horrible failings. On the whole, the company acknowledge that something needs to be done to improve the current situation. Jim Murray (JM) stated that the company has a new strategy which it intends to make public at the AGM. We were not told what it was. I encouraged him to make it public sooner because the vast majority of retail investors hold shares in nominee accounts and therefore, their deadline for voting via proxy is actually this week sometime, not the AGM itself. JM and Peter Ibbetson (PI) seemed to acknowledge that fact as well. I'm hopefully that we'll hear something but I am also not holding my breathe either. We shall see. The reason that I'm sceptical is that while I admit the JM and PI were receptive of the feedback we provided, there were instances where they obviously didn't not agree with us, and I find that somewhat concerning since the 4 investors present spanned the gamete of the investing community, with a fund manager present, a retain investor (myself), and large retail investor and an institution (ATEK). We all independently agreed on the following point but were rebuffed by HL and the company. They feel that the last RNS (...no rights issue) could not in any form be read to imply that a placing is possible, even when read in conjunction with an unusually strong declining share price For so called experts, HL's comments really amazed me. Also, when discussing the topic of acquisitions at very low SP, the HL rep ask me personally why I cared, it's not my shares that they're giving away. Simultaneously, BJM and myself said "dilution" without skipping a heart beat. Again, I was completely put aback that HL do not understand why we are somewhat upset at low share price acquisitions, which then worries me that they are the advisers to the board. The HL guy was antagonistic to BJM from the start, but it would appear that they know one another from the bid process and so there may be some animosity there. I've asked Jim if they'd consider webcasting the agm, and he said that he'd look into it if there was enough time to achieve it. I have subsequently found 3 webcasting companies (with the help of Hambi) who are free on the day and are able to do it. I have sent that information directly to JM and PI and leave it to them to decide if they'll use the service or not. If they are serious about changing the comms strategy, I would sincerely hope that they take the opportunity to provide the webcast as I'm certain that many shareholders would appreciate it. If the webcast is the place, it would demonstrate to me anyway, that JM is serious about making changes, and that maybe we should give him a chance to lead the board. I've also asked that if there's a powerpoint presentation (or alike) at the AGM, that it too should be made available for download from the company website. PI seemed to really like that idea, and was in general very attentive as to what was being suggested. Personally, I was impressed with him as on several occasions, he openly asked us about how we would like it or what we'd like to see, and more importantly, he attentively listened for the answer. I'm personally unsure if he should be voted out, as suggested by others. There were some comments about the website, and both JM and PI were receptive that it needed improving. Feedback was given by myself as well as BJM. I think that we can expect improvements here. How soon though, I do not know, but JM did appear to want things to move sooner rather than later. The wording of RNS was a contentious issue. The HL rep constantly accused the investors of reading in too much into them, and said that we should read between the lines. Well, we all know that the RNS rarely ever have enough info contained in them, and thus one must read between the lines. The HL rep rejected that. John Wall made the point that many statements in RNSs contradicted other statements in other RNSs and gave several good examples about the SCP to prove his point. I made a comment about incompleteness of many RNSs and gave several examples to prove my point. The HL rep then took that to say that we're getting trapped on the disclosure treadmill and that the solution was to release less news. I said, no, the solution was to release complete and accurate news. That it goes a long way to establishing credibility and confidence. The HL rep accused me of nit-picking small details, to which I replied, that one wrong detail here or there is not a big deal, but when the quantity of these little incorrect or contradictory or misleading or incomplete bits of information stack up in an investors mind, it leads to a lack of confidence and a lack of trust. This fit in well with the point that John Wall as trying to make to the management about trust. Thankfully, JM jumped in with acknowledgement of the point that it was similar to green stamp, that one alone is worthless, but collect hundreds and it's meaningful. I accept that JM and PI understand that attention to detail is important. PI did acknowledge that there were too many products to follows, with 155 of them. We, the investors agreed, that they only needs to follows the significant ones. The rest we aren't really that concerned with. Prioritize which ones you report on, and don't mention the rest. It simplifies the reporting and makes things easier to understand for the investor. So, I feel that I accomplished what I was hoping to accomplish by attending the meeting. I'm hopeful that the company will take it all on board and that we'll see a distinctive change. Fingers crossed. Regarding the other issue raised at the meeting. I did back BJM argument that acquisitions when the share price was low is not in our interest. The company's stated strategy was to continue down the acquisition road. BJM rightfully said that it cannot, and shouldn't, be done when the share price is so low. The currency that we use to buy these companies needs to be fairly valued before we use it. IMO, the company must first concentrate on getting the share price up to a sustainable fair level before it contemplates its next acquisition. The company is now cash generative so there no longer a rush to acquire or die. Acquisitions at any share price is not acceptable. One last point, I mentioned that there were many RNSs quoting that the company was active in achieiving shareholder value. I asked JM how he measured shareholders value. JM replied that it was the share price. Both BJM and myself clarfied what it's not market cap that you're talking about, it's share price. JM confirmed that it was share price. I then asked the same question to PI and he endorsed JM remarks, but added, in the medium term. It would appear that they accept that the problems cannot be fixed overnight but they have a plan. JM did openly say at one point, that we needed to trust him and give him time to make the changes. I do feel that JM does wish to make the changes necessary, and he specifically mentioned that he needed PI and Stewart Adkins on his team. He emphasized that their skills were invaluable to him. So if you back JM, then you should back PI and SA as he is vouching for them. At the moment, I'm inclined to back JM, and this PI and SA as well. One really last point, and final comment is that JM did mentioned that he'd like to see investors more often than just once a year at the agm. He does give the impression that he's serious about his role as Chairman, and wishes to engage with investors. I just hope that he spends equal time with the institutions because we needs them on board, but we need them buying in the open market, and that'll require good communication to start it off.
Meldex 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:40 V: D:20161209 15:22:41