4d Pharma Share Discussion Threads

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 14:37

4Ds IP are 'Intangible' assets PWhite but they still continue to have some value to a potential suitor, ie.Oxford Finance and I assure you now that they've already set a plan in motion of how to realise it without 4D!

..By the way, OF maybe a finance company but their interests lie solely within Bio sector and they know exactly what they're doing here buddy, make no mistake!

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 14:35

Unless OF have a friendly US Pharma company read and waiting to put an offer in. They can pick it all up for £11m which after administrator costs can repay OF who are top of the list and screw you all.

[pwhite73] 26/6/2022 14:29

O_F the secured creditors are Oxford Finance. 4D is not a retail company where tangible assets can be sold on the open market. It is a biotech company. OF is a finance company so unless the directors are all medics they would not know what to do with the IP or the clinical trials already in progress.

This is where the administrators come in. They could turn round and say to OF look your best bet is to refinance the company and allow the valuable IP to progress via the clinical trials.

Speak Later

[boxerdogz] 26/6/2022 14:29

One_Frankel26 Jun '22 - 14:19 - 29817 of 29818 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Big Mouth Little cuck. Hyde park Toilets awaits you ?

Frwunkle , also known as slack A@s@ ......oooooh errrrr mkisses

Now then now then , Gary Gliter would be proud of thsi one. Honky Honk lol, bacon sandwich brigade xxxxx

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 14:25

Pwhite. That is silly. 4D had £20m in July 21 when they took the loan. They did not have to take it. As far as I can see the only secured creditor is OF so they decide.
Either the BoD (and just look at the salaries and the NEDs fees) were completely incompetent or they have been part of a screw the PIs plan. Neither good.

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 14:19

...Ohh please PWhite!...There is a reason for having a contract in the first place, because all parties agree to the adhere to the stipulations it contains but if either party breaches the terms then other has the legal capacity to forfeit the other and it is first and foremost of how administrators begin to divide the underlying assets...

But who do you think are the only secured creditors here and at the top of that tree, surely not Oxford Finance buddy!

[pwhite73] 26/6/2022 14:12

One_Frankel - "It's in OFs contractual terms PWhite, breach them and the total asset of 4Ds IP is theirs"

No its not true. Once administrators are brought in all previous contracts and agreements are essentially ripped up and the administrators decide who gets what normally starting with the secured creditors. Administrators also look at the terms of all contracts and can decide if they were too onerous at the outset. For example a company that faces a liquidity crisis will agree to any financial terms (50% pa interest) or face going bust. The administrators would look at the secured loan against 4D's assets and decide if they were fair. The administrators work on behalf of the High Court not the lenders and they report back to the High Court and the Insolvency Service.

To me this looks like it will end in a CVA and returned to the directors and shareholders.

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 14:09

One frankel. Reading the loan terms you may well be right.
£166m of investment over the years lost due to DP and all that overpaid rabble not having a clue.

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 14:05

The contractual terms of OF have been signed and delivered by 4D PATT, there is no going back!...Noone else is to be blamed from this utter shambles apart from DP and his level cronies, I cannot make that point any more firmly.

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 13:57

The loan was secured in all their IP but I am not a commercial lawyer so do not know if that means it is theirs.

One frankel. The RNS says that OF instructed administration under the terms of the loan.

FatGreek. The company can apply for what they like but they have lost sny power.

[fatgreek] 26/6/2022 13:49

Company has filed a NAAA3 application for joint administrator they want a say.

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 13:49

It's in OFs contractual terms PWhite, breach them and the total asset of 4Ds IP is theirs, there is no other discussion but why do you think it is them who have instigated the whole process of placing 4D into administration...

And PWhite in regards to the directors being held for malfeasance under the companies act of 2006, they'll just repeatedly state without any questioning whatsoever that they were scouring through various options for its future sustainability but the prevailing market conditions were deemed to be just too challenging...

Come on buddy it's clear cut, investors have been well and truly shafted here!

[fatgreek] 26/6/2022 13:47

4D have applied also for joint administration

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 13:46

Pwhite. Just me being cynical. Friendly administrators appointed by OF will have total control. If it was a stitch up then this will be done and dusted quickly. Let’s see. But your are right….in theory that should happen. Good points though well made.

[pwhite73] 26/6/2022 13:34

patt - "Now OF will run the process by appointing their own administrators and they will pick up all the IP for zilch."

This is not true. No decision will be made by OF. The administrators appointed by OF or endorsed by the High Court will have total control over the administration process. OF will not be able to pick up the IP for zilch if the administrators can sell it to a higher bidder to cover the debts. For example if the IP can be sold to Pfizer for £50 million the administrators will take the money, pay off OF and other secured creditors, take their fees and return the company to the directors and shareholders. It all depends on how much the IP is worth on the open market.

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 13:33

Pwhite. You do raise an interesting point. Exactly when did the BoD become aware that the loan was being pulled? The moment that happened then the company by definition was trading while insolvent and the Directors become personally liable under Companies Act. They could be under the cosh there.

Second point. Spot on. If you have any holdings with debt, check and check again the terms and covenants as debt kills PI value.

[pwhite73] 26/6/2022 13:28

Irrespective if Oxford called for the administration if a loan has been called in and the company cannot service it the company is trading insolvently. If the company then goes bust the directors have committed a criminal offence under the Companies act 2006. This is why in this recession you have to take note of companies advising you of a debt call they may not be able to service. When this happens get out.

[nigelpm] 26/6/2022 13:22

That's incorrect pwhite. Oxford called for the administration.

[pwhite73] 26/6/2022 13:12

Its only a $13 million debt. The problem is they can't service it so the loan has been called in which technically makes the company insolvent. Under the Companies Act 2006 it is a criminal offence to trade whilst insolvent. Directors can be fined and sent to prison. Therefore there was no other option but to place the company into administration whilst something is worked out.

[one_frankel] 26/6/2022 12:50

It's the apocalypse Algeron2!...But follow the signs, follow the signs dear fellow, hehe!

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 12:22

To be fair you did forecast it. So you were correct.

Classic case of never, ever, ever invest in a pre launch Pharma company with debt. It can disappear as quickly as 4D. The problem is that the terms of the loan were published even if it was buried in many pages so nobody can say they were not unable to see it. It is absolutely disgusting that this key term was not RNSd as they included it was interest only until late 23. They just forgot to mention the Dark Star clause. How the trading RNS could have been published by RNS on 1/4/22 saying the OF loan had strengthen their finances when it actually meant that they were dead that day is beyond me.

I looked at 4D to invest. Saw debt. Turned 180 and left. Did not get to the point of checking loan covenants.

But all PIs have been treated appallingly be their board. Some people who had read the covenants had a one way bet to make fortunes knowing the share price was going to zero.

[buy2sell1] 26/6/2022 12:07

DON'T SAY WE DIDN'T WARN YOU:

because here's the posting dated 21/06/22 buy2sell1 21 Jun '22 - 17:16 - 29373

Another fine "BUY" recommendation from SKEPPY INVESTOR / MILLSTONE INVESTOR


========================================================================================
The City whispers are ADMINISTRATION & SHARE SUSPENSION PENDING
========================================================================================

[purchaseatthetop] 26/6/2022 11:55

Don’t shout. It’s Sunday.