Onzima Ventures Share Discussion Threads

[cufes2] 31/7/2016 09:30

As you well know SRG have already reneged on handing some cash back in March with a weak excuse and it's now nearly August . . . You have messed up again . . . And so back to ONZ . . . ONZ own 49% of N4 Pharma and the owner of N4 Pharma owns 16% of ONZ . . . what is good for N4 Pharma is good for ONZ . . .

[cufes2] 30/7/2016 08:05

LMAO . . . now it all becomes clearer . . . fido is stuck in a delisted company that is reneging on promises to return cash to its shareholders . . . No wonder fido is so bitter having been screwed over by directors at UTN, TPL and SRG . . .

Director.

SKYSHIP 13 Jan'16 - 17:31 - 264 of 305 6 0

I've decided to write to the Company. Hopefully it will elicit a reply:
======================================================================

Dear Mr Mervis

On 5th March last year you made this announcement to shareholders:

“It has been previously announced that it was the intention of the Directors to make a payment to shareholders of 15p per share in April 2015. As making ad hoc payments incur not insignificant cumulative legal and administrative fees it is considered preferable to make an enhanced payment only once further funds have been realised from the disposal of one or more of SRG’s operating segments.”

It is always a worry when companies delist; it is then a much greater worry when the Directors renege on past promises.

I hope you are either well advanced on a substantial further sale; or if not, you will reconsider and repay to shareholders the cash balance as previously promised. You may consider the costs are high; but shareholders are entitled to use their own money as they deem fit, rather than to have it languishing on deposit under the control of a delisted and less accountable Company.

A year has now passed since the delisting; so it would seem appropriate to consider an early, first repayment of c20p-25p.

[patientcapital] 29/7/2016 22:52

Now that you are an 'insider' under the Act you should no longer be commenting in public unless doing so through official channels, i.e. by way of the Regulatory News Service.

[fido] 29/7/2016 22:43

Just got back
Been a very long day.
The meeting with my contact CEO, contray to what many thought, went well.
On the plus side he was pleased that I had brought the option to his attention and seemed receptive to the idea. On the downside I did not get a definative answer Yes or No although as I said, he did seem interested.
On advice I have this afternoon sold out of my onz shareholding pending his further discussion with other board members over the next few days.
I have done this to avoid any conflict of interest and to avoid any inside informaion issues if talks turn out to be successful.
I have also sold for personal reasons ahead of further discussions because I feel that a positive response will result in onz shares coming under considerable pressure.
As things stand at the moment I am waiting for a call back early next week and I will take it from there.
Overall I feel positive.

Early night for me.
Talk tomorrow.

[cufes2] 29/7/2016 15:39

Now it's dropped through the support fido . . . Enjoy lobbing one off at the thought . . .

[cufes2] 29/7/2016 13:16

That's more old news and a lot of supposition . . .

[keya5000] 29/7/2016 12:51

Buyers back and bounced back off the support again.

Time to make a definitive move now.

Come on ONZ.

[patientcapital] 29/7/2016 12:07

Must be in the regiment. Good at escape and evasion. Up today I see. Must be in anticipation of all the £££ coming onz's way following the meeting!

[keya5000] 29/7/2016 12:03

Still keeping the charade going I see.

I could write the 'review' of the fantasy meeting now for him to save time.

[fido] 29/7/2016 11:37

Been a busy morning.
Very quickly before I set off, many here say that onz can increase their stake in N4. However there are those who consider that onz are already in breach of their investment policy.
Catch you later.

Is Onzima Ventures breaching it's investing policy?

By Gary Newman | Tuesday 8 March 2016

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

I’ve been noticing a lot of chatter on Twitter about a small AIM investing company called Onzima Ventures (ONZ), so I decided to take a closer look to see if all the fuss was justified!

This company was previously known as Ultima Networks until October 15 last year when it changed its name, having disposed of all of its operating activities and then raised £750,000, before expenses, by issuing 107.1 million shares at 0.7p.

Last week it saw its share price rocket when it announced that it had acquired a 49% stake in a private company called N4 Pharma Limited, via the issue of 24.27 million Onzima shares (locked in for two years) plus £41,000 in cash.

On the face of it N4 Pharma looks quite interesting as it is in the biotech industry and reformulates existing drugs using it’s patented Cocrys and Nuvac technology platforms, plus founder Nigel Theobald has over 25 years in the industry.

As part of the deal Onzima also agreed to provide a loan facility of £209,000 to develop the business, at an annual rate of 5% and repayable after four years, and there has been much excitement on the chat forums about how great N4 and it’s products are – although it is yet to actually have any product approved or ready for market.

The main focus seems to be around a faster-acting alternative to existing Viagra, where the patent ran out in 2013, and there have been boasts about this market being potentially worth $4 billion.

With that in mind I find it somewhat strange that N4 Pharma has had to turn to a tiny AIM company like Onzima to secure the funding that it needs, as you’d think that potential investors would be crawling all over it if the product was that good!

It is hard to find that much information on N4 Pharma as it is privately listed, although its last accounts up to the end of March 2015 did show that it had trade creditors of over £52,000, with just £5,500 in the bank and net liabilities of nearly £37,000. This might suggest that it wasn’t in great financial shape, having only been set up a couple of years or so ago, yet Onzima has paid the equivalent of around £200,000 in cash and shares for it’s 49% stake.

Given the costs often associated with biotech and getting a final drug to market, even if it is only in a new form, I have to wonder how much more cash it is going to need in the future, as well as whether bigger companies are going to just stand aside and allow it to grab a share of the Viagra market, or that of any other major drug for that matter!

But what also interests me is whether Onzima is adhering to its investing policy, as set out when it changed it’s name and became an investing company.

It raised net proceeds of £650,000 from the equity issue, which amounted to its net cash at the time, and its investing policy states that it will seek to invest a minimum of 75% of its deployable capital in the natural resources sector – an area it’s CEO Gavin Burnell (of Globo infamy) knows well from previous directorships in companies such as Magnolia Petroleum (MAGP), plus a number of current ones.

Now I can’t help wondering if that leaves Onzima in breach of its investing policy, given that the money potentially loaned to N4 is no longer available to be invested as stated – although in terms of direct investment in N4 the company hasn’t breached the agreed 25% limit for non-natural resources based interests.

Aside from this Onzima also invested £50,000 in fellow AIM investment company Glenwick (GWIK) at 0.1p back in December, and seems to have flipped that in circumstances which raised eyebrows (HERE).

Onzima shares are currently trading at around 1.1p to buy and that gives a market cap of nearly £1.5 million, which represents a considerable mark-up to it’s actual asset value (given what it has paid for it’s share of N4 you would have to assume that is the current value of that 49% - although selling it to anyone else might not be easy so that is being generous!). There is also a £4 million debt technically due to the company as a result of the disposal of its previous assets, but any repayment of that will only benefit those holding special deferred shares, via any special dividend, which were issued when the capital was reorganised prior to the equity issue at 0.7p.

This could well see further spikes in the future, but I would expect the majority of those to be based more on hype than substance, and therefore consider this company to be extremely high risk and not one for novice investors or small PIs to consider risking their money in.

Even more so when I think there is the potential for questions to be raised about a possible breach of it’s investing criteria, plus the past few days are probably the first real chance that those 0.7p placees from back in October have had to offload at a profit, given very thin daily volumes for several months!
- See more at:

[fido] 29/7/2016 11:37

Been a busy morning.
Very quickly before I set off, many here say that onz can increase their stake in N4. However there are those who consider that onz are already in breach of their investment policy.
Catch you later.

Is Onzima Ventures breaching it's investing policy?

By Gary Newman | Tuesday 8 March 2016

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

I’ve been noticing a lot of chatter on Twitter about a small AIM investing company called Onzima Ventures (ONZ), so I decided to take a closer look to see if all the fuss was justified!

This company was previously known as Ultima Networks until October 15 last year when it changed its name, having disposed of all of its operating activities and then raised £750,000, before expenses, by issuing 107.1 million shares at 0.7p.

Last week it saw its share price rocket when it announced that it had acquired a 49% stake in a private company called N4 Pharma Limited, via the issue of 24.27 million Onzima shares (locked in for two years) plus £41,000 in cash.

On the face of it N4 Pharma looks quite interesting as it is in the biotech industry and reformulates existing drugs using it’s patented Cocrys and Nuvac technology platforms, plus founder Nigel Theobald has over 25 years in the industry.

As part of the deal Onzima also agreed to provide a loan facility of £209,000 to develop the business, at an annual rate of 5% and repayable after four years, and there has been much excitement on the chat forums about how great N4 and it’s products are – although it is yet to actually have any product approved or ready for market.

The main focus seems to be around a faster-acting alternative to existing Viagra, where the patent ran out in 2013, and there have been boasts about this market being potentially worth $4 billion.

With that in mind I find it somewhat strange that N4 Pharma has had to turn to a tiny AIM company like Onzima to secure the funding that it needs, as you’d think that potential investors would be crawling all over it if the product was that good!

It is hard to find that much information on N4 Pharma as it is privately listed, although its last accounts up to the end of March 2015 did show that it had trade creditors of over £52,000, with just £5,500 in the bank and net liabilities of nearly £37,000. This might suggest that it wasn’t in great financial shape, having only been set up a couple of years or so ago, yet Onzima has paid the equivalent of around £200,000 in cash and shares for it’s 49% stake.

Given the costs often associated with biotech and getting a final drug to market, even if it is only in a new form, I have to wonder how much more cash it is going to need in the future, as well as whether bigger companies are going to just stand aside and allow it to grab a share of the Viagra market, or that of any other major drug for that matter!

But what also interests me is whether Onzima is adhering to its investing policy, as set out when it changed it’s name and became an investing company.

It raised net proceeds of £650,000 from the equity issue, which amounted to its net cash at the time, and its investing policy states that it will seek to invest a minimum of 75% of its deployable capital in the natural resources sector – an area it’s CEO Gavin Burnell (of Globo infamy) knows well from previous directorships in companies such as Magnolia Petroleum (MAGP), plus a number of current ones.

Now I can’t help wondering if that leaves Onzima in breach of its investing policy, given that the money potentially loaned to N4 is no longer available to be invested as stated – although in terms of direct investment in N4 the company hasn’t breached the agreed 25% limit for non-natural resources based interests.

Aside from this Onzima also invested £50,000 in fellow AIM investment company Glenwick (GWIK) at 0.1p back in December, and seems to have flipped that in circumstances which raised eyebrows (HERE).

Onzima shares are currently trading at around 1.1p to buy and that gives a market cap of nearly £1.5 million, which represents a considerable mark-up to it’s actual asset value (given what it has paid for it’s share of N4 you would have to assume that is the current value of that 49% - although selling it to anyone else might not be easy so that is being generous!). There is also a £4 million debt technically due to the company as a result of the disposal of its previous assets, but any repayment of that will only benefit those holding special deferred shares, via any special dividend, which were issued when the capital was reorganised prior to the equity issue at 0.7p.

This could well see further spikes in the future, but I would expect the majority of those to be based more on hype than substance, and therefore consider this company to be extremely high risk and not one for novice investors or small PIs to consider risking their money in.

Even more so when I think there is the potential for questions to be raised about a possible breach of it’s investing criteria, plus the past few days are probably the first real chance that those 0.7p placees from back in October have had to offload at a profit, given very thin daily volumes for several months!
- See more at:

[fido] 29/7/2016 11:36

Been a busy morning.
Very quickly before I set off, many here say that onz can increase their stake in N4. However there are those who consider that onz are already in breach of their investment policy.
Catch you later.

Is Onzima Ventures breaching it's investing policy?

By Gary Newman | Tuesday 8 March 2016

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

I’ve been noticing a lot of chatter on Twitter about a small AIM investing company called Onzima Ventures (ONZ), so I decided to take a closer look to see if all the fuss was justified!

This company was previously known as Ultima Networks until October 15 last year when it changed its name, having disposed of all of its operating activities and then raised £750,000, before expenses, by issuing 107.1 million shares at 0.7p.

Last week it saw its share price rocket when it announced that it had acquired a 49% stake in a private company called N4 Pharma Limited, via the issue of 24.27 million Onzima shares (locked in for two years) plus £41,000 in cash.

On the face of it N4 Pharma looks quite interesting as it is in the biotech industry and reformulates existing drugs using it’s patented Cocrys and Nuvac technology platforms, plus founder Nigel Theobald has over 25 years in the industry.

As part of the deal Onzima also agreed to provide a loan facility of £209,000 to develop the business, at an annual rate of 5% and repayable after four years, and there has been much excitement on the chat forums about how great N4 and it’s products are – although it is yet to actually have any product approved or ready for market.

The main focus seems to be around a faster-acting alternative to existing Viagra, where the patent ran out in 2013, and there have been boasts about this market being potentially worth $4 billion.

With that in mind I find it somewhat strange that N4 Pharma has had to turn to a tiny AIM company like Onzima to secure the funding that it needs, as you’d think that potential investors would be crawling all over it if the product was that good!

It is hard to find that much information on N4 Pharma as it is privately listed, although its last accounts up to the end of March 2015 did show that it had trade creditors of over £52,000, with just £5,500 in the bank and net liabilities of nearly £37,000. This might suggest that it wasn’t in great financial shape, having only been set up a couple of years or so ago, yet Onzima has paid the equivalent of around £200,000 in cash and shares for it’s 49% stake.

Given the costs often associated with biotech and getting a final drug to market, even if it is only in a new form, I have to wonder how much more cash it is going to need in the future, as well as whether bigger companies are going to just stand aside and allow it to grab a share of the Viagra market, or that of any other major drug for that matter!

But what also interests me is whether Onzima is adhering to its investing policy, as set out when it changed it’s name and became an investing company.

It raised net proceeds of £650,000 from the equity issue, which amounted to its net cash at the time, and its investing policy states that it will seek to invest a minimum of 75% of its deployable capital in the natural resources sector – an area it’s CEO Gavin Burnell (of Globo infamy) knows well from previous directorships in companies such as Magnolia Petroleum (MAGP), plus a number of current ones.

Now I can’t help wondering if that leaves Onzima in breach of its investing policy, given that the money potentially loaned to N4 is no longer available to be invested as stated – although in terms of direct investment in N4 the company hasn’t breached the agreed 25% limit for non-natural resources based interests.

Aside from this Onzima also invested £50,000 in fellow AIM investment company Glenwick (GWIK) at 0.1p back in December, and seems to have flipped that in circumstances which raised eyebrows (HERE).

Onzima shares are currently trading at around 1.1p to buy and that gives a market cap of nearly £1.5 million, which represents a considerable mark-up to it’s actual asset value (given what it has paid for it’s share of N4 you would have to assume that is the current value of that 49% - although selling it to anyone else might not be easy so that is being generous!). There is also a £4 million debt technically due to the company as a result of the disposal of its previous assets, but any repayment of that will only benefit those holding special deferred shares, via any special dividend, which were issued when the capital was reorganised prior to the equity issue at 0.7p.

This could well see further spikes in the future, but I would expect the majority of those to be based more on hype than substance, and therefore consider this company to be extremely high risk and not one for novice investors or small PIs to consider risking their money in.

Even more so when I think there is the potential for questions to be raised about a possible breach of it’s investing criteria, plus the past few days are probably the first real chance that those 0.7p placees from back in October have had to offload at a profit, given very thin daily volumes for several months!
- See more at:

[fido] 29/7/2016 11:35

Been a busy morning.
Very quickly before I set off, many here say that onz can increase their stake in N4. However there are those who consider that onz are already in breach of their investment policy.
Catch you later.

Is Onzima Ventures breaching it's investing policy?

By Gary Newman | Tuesday 8 March 2016

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

I’ve been noticing a lot of chatter on Twitter about a small AIM investing company called Onzima Ventures (ONZ), so I decided to take a closer look to see if all the fuss was justified!

This company was previously known as Ultima Networks until October 15 last year when it changed its name, having disposed of all of its operating activities and then raised £750,000, before expenses, by issuing 107.1 million shares at 0.7p.

Last week it saw its share price rocket when it announced that it had acquired a 49% stake in a private company called N4 Pharma Limited, via the issue of 24.27 million Onzima shares (locked in for two years) plus £41,000 in cash.

On the face of it N4 Pharma looks quite interesting as it is in the biotech industry and reformulates existing drugs using it’s patented Cocrys and Nuvac technology platforms, plus founder Nigel Theobald has over 25 years in the industry.

As part of the deal Onzima also agreed to provide a loan facility of £209,000 to develop the business, at an annual rate of 5% and repayable after four years, and there has been much excitement on the chat forums about how great N4 and it’s products are – although it is yet to actually have any product approved or ready for market.

The main focus seems to be around a faster-acting alternative to existing Viagra, where the patent ran out in 2013, and there have been boasts about this market being potentially worth $4 billion.

With that in mind I find it somewhat strange that N4 Pharma has had to turn to a tiny AIM company like Onzima to secure the funding that it needs, as you’d think that potential investors would be crawling all over it if the product was that good!

It is hard to find that much information on N4 Pharma as it is privately listed, although its last accounts up to the end of March 2015 did show that it had trade creditors of over £52,000, with just £5,500 in the bank and net liabilities of nearly £37,000. This might suggest that it wasn’t in great financial shape, having only been set up a couple of years or so ago, yet Onzima has paid the equivalent of around £200,000 in cash and shares for it’s 49% stake.

Given the costs often associated with biotech and getting a final drug to market, even if it is only in a new form, I have to wonder how much more cash it is going to need in the future, as well as whether bigger companies are going to just stand aside and allow it to grab a share of the Viagra market, or that of any other major drug for that matter!

But what also interests me is whether Onzima is adhering to its investing policy, as set out when it changed it’s name and became an investing company.

It raised net proceeds of £650,000 from the equity issue, which amounted to its net cash at the time, and its investing policy states that it will seek to invest a minimum of 75% of its deployable capital in the natural resources sector – an area it’s CEO Gavin Burnell (of Globo infamy) knows well from previous directorships in companies such as Magnolia Petroleum (MAGP), plus a number of current ones.

Now I can’t help wondering if that leaves Onzima in breach of its investing policy, given that the money potentially loaned to N4 is no longer available to be invested as stated – although in terms of direct investment in N4 the company hasn’t breached the agreed 25% limit for non-natural resources based interests.

Aside from this Onzima also invested £50,000 in fellow AIM investment company Glenwick (GWIK) at 0.1p back in December, and seems to have flipped that in circumstances which raised eyebrows (HERE).

Onzima shares are currently trading at around 1.1p to buy and that gives a market cap of nearly £1.5 million, which represents a considerable mark-up to it’s actual asset value (given what it has paid for it’s share of N4 you would have to assume that is the current value of that 49% - although selling it to anyone else might not be easy so that is being generous!). There is also a £4 million debt technically due to the company as a result of the disposal of its previous assets, but any repayment of that will only benefit those holding special deferred shares, via any special dividend, which were issued when the capital was reorganised prior to the equity issue at 0.7p.

This could well see further spikes in the future, but I would expect the majority of those to be based more on hype than substance, and therefore consider this company to be extremely high risk and not one for novice investors or small PIs to consider risking their money in.

Even more so when I think there is the potential for questions to be raised about a possible breach of it’s investing criteria, plus the past few days are probably the first real chance that those 0.7p placees from back in October have had to offload at a profit, given very thin daily volumes for several months!
- See more at:

[cufes2] 29/7/2016 07:12

ONZ own 49% of N4 Pharma and Nigel Theobald the owner of N4 Pharma owns 16% of ONZ . . . Nigel specifically said . . . "We've tried to set it up with the greatest amount of flexibility so that we can maintain the value for our existing shareholders, us being Onzima and myself" . . . so what's good for N4 Pharma is good for ONZ and vice versa . . . it's quite simple really . . .

[patientcapital] 28/7/2016 23:14

Btw your obsession with dilution is utterly wrong. As virtually equal shareholders onz would be diluted no more so than the other owner of N4. 2% difference is little more than a rounding error. I don't know the terms of the onz to N4 loan but these may even enhance the onz position if there is any convertible element.Far from rendering onz as a useless investment any such deals would prove to have the total opposite effect since outside monies would be financing the lead up to commercialisation.Doubt you will be posting after your meeting as you will have most certainly have become an insider for the purposes of the insider dealing legislation. If you do post you would be well advised to seek professional guidance before doing so.

[patientcapital] 28/7/2016 22:46

He also stated that any deal would be in the best interests of N4's owners. Qualified by saying himself and onz. Guess that is why he was happy to take onz stock, eh? Win, win for onz.The more you can drum up tomorrow the more our shares will be worth! Good luck, put your best foot forward.

[fido] 28/7/2016 22:37

That`s it for tonight as I have a long day tomorrow but I will be available for a chat in the morning for a while.

[fido] 28/7/2016 22:35

Not so.
I post my response from another thread but and deal with another investment vehicle will see the end of onz as an investment.

With regard the dilution of the top company, what Nigel actually says is that N4 could attract pacific invest vehicles that would invest and then be owned by that investment vehicle and N4 depending on the investment. That in turn would dilute onz`s stake. Nigel also says that the best option is for an investment vehicle to fund the full investment capital because that would give the greatest royalty to N4 of 10-15% as opposed to 5-10% if it was funded differently.

This is what Nigel has stated in the latest webinar (about 22m in) so in effect if the £2-3 million was offered then he could accept and although onz would still hold a diluted stake it would effectively be the end of onz as an investment.

[patientcapital] 28/7/2016 22:31

Wrong interpretation. Anything positive for N4 by definition must be so for its owners. Guess what? onz owns almost half of N4. Elementary, really. Textbook stuff. You read economics at university I take it? Magdalen was it?

[fido] 28/7/2016 22:27

With regard the dilution of the top company, what Nigel actually says is that N4 could attract pacific invest vehicles that would invest and then be owned by that investment vehicle and N4 depending on the investment. That in turn would dilute onz`s stake. Nigel also says that the best option is for an investment vehicle to fund the full investment capital because that would give the greatest royalty to N4 of 10-15% as opposed to 5-10% if it was funded differently.

This is what Nigel has stated in the latest webinar (about 22m in) so in effect if the £2-3 million was offered then he could accept and although onz would still hold a diluted stake it would effectively be the end of onz as an investment.