We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avia Health | AVIA | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 2.125 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.125 | 2.125 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 15/11/2013 17:02 by drunken sailor However calling someone, who can be proven to have told lies in a public forum, a liar cannot be defamation. Calling someone who has, through total ineptitude on their part, lost investors £Ms, incompetent cannot be libel. Calling someone, who can be proven to have lined his own pockets in fees from shareholders money through executing transactions which are not in the shareholders' interests, corrupt cannot be slander.Equally when someone brings such cases, they have to expect that the defense will examine any wrong doing on the part of the plaintiff in significant depth. This would include questioning whether a director had fulfilled his responsibilities as clearly defined in the Companies Act. The defense would no doubt cite as mitigation for any claim that was felt to have merit that the defendant had repeatedly raised many entirely valid matters with the appropriate authorities and whereas those authorities did eventually act to correct past misinformation put out by the plaintive, they did not take appropriate or effective steps to prevent a recurrence and the plaintiff therefore merrily carried on abusing his position of trust as a company director in similar and different ways drawing in others who have since also published misinformation to support the plaintiff's on going attempts to mislead investors and thereby further enrich himself. Finally the fact that the defendant is a long term shareholder in the company where the plaintiff is a director, is a Private Investor with no link to the financial industry and has received no remuneration for anything he said or did except receive the thanks and admiration of other investors and was only ever acting to try to prevent investors like himself losing their money, would also need to be taken into account. 22 Months have past since Tim Baldwin first tried to threaten me with his lawyers, they know how to contact me, I have heard nothing. |
Posted at 10/11/2013 20:47 by bili1946 Good evening GI,Further to your comments I unreservedly apologise for my legal shortcoming. In my defence I did suggest that you confirmed your suggestion that the FCA were bound to publish details of action they take in respect of complaints from members of the public.They clearly gave me incomplete information. With respect to slander versus libel I took my understanding from the relatively recent comments from a High Court Judge Mr Justice Eady: "Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court Judge Mr Justice Eady. Defamation on internet bulletin boards is more like slander than libel, a High Court judge has ruled. Mr Justice Eady said that bulletin board discussions are characterised by "give and take" and should be considered in that context. In a multi-defendant lawsuit concerning posts on an investors' bulletin board, Mr Justice Eady said that comments on a board are not to be taken in the same context as those in, for example, a newspaper article. He said that the casual, conversational nature of bulletin boards meant that defamatory comments were more like slander than libel. Slander relates generally to spoken comments and libel generally to written and published ones. In English law it is harder to win damages for slander than libel......." Having no legal training I will bow to your specialist knowledge,and presume that his judgement is not valid. As I have apologised publicly to you I hope that you will have the good grace to apologise to me for suggesting that I am an alias of ds? I am flattered that you think that I have his intellectual abilities....! I am more than prepared to prove that I am totally unconnected if you feel it is that important. |
Posted at 10/11/2013 19:54 by drunken sailor KNIGEL,Drop me a line at drunken.sailor1@hotm You need to be aware that despite the pretense of people like GI/BG/TB that it is just one person with multiple aliases, actually there are a lot of people who feel the same as I do and post accordingly, TB has through his arrogance and deceptions built up a truly international following of people who have had enough of his brand of deception. I appreciate you want Cientifica to be a success so you can recoup some of your losses. Nothing would please me more than to see that happen. Unfortunately there is no realistic prospect of that happening while TB is involved to which his long history of failures is testament. If Tim Harper does not get rid of him very soon, then that tells you all you need to know about Tim Harper. Happy to chat more by direct e-mail |
Posted at 10/11/2013 19:28 by drunken sailor GIIf you want to pretend you are not Tim B then e-mail me at drunken.sailor1@hotm In the meantime can you name just 1 TB investment scheme that has made any money for the investors (I can name a few that have made money for TB in fees (World UFO company ring any bells?), but that does not count as making money for investors). As a lawyer (so you claim) you should know the difference between a statement that could be misconstrued by a careless reader to mean something it plainly did not if read properly and an accusation. As TB you know this very well because you take full advantage of ambiguous wording routinely to mislead investors whilst not technically lying (apart from when you lie about the Tasmania gas pipeline on video in the public domain). Your partner in crime Mad Malc Bendall tries this trick also, but mainly he relies on abysmal grammar to obfuscate. |
Posted at 09/11/2013 12:27 by drunken sailor Oh not more of those off camera questions where TB lies even more outrageously than he does in the presentation and on camera questions.Here is the really key part of the OB presentation: "The content of this confidential document ("Presentation") has not been approved by an authorised person within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA"). Reliance on the information contained in this Presentation for the purposes of engaging in any investment activity may expose the investor to a significant risk of losing all of the property or assets invested." How he can call it a confidential document when he is in a public presentation that is then automatically posted on the internet just sums up how competent Tim really isn't. However exactly the same applies to everything TB says including here. The really really key bit for those who have trouble reading small print: EXPOSE THE INVESTOR TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF LOSING ALL OF THE PROPERTY OR ASSETS INVESTED. Many people have already warned about this, nice of TB to do it himself. |
Posted at 07/11/2013 09:24 by graphene investor Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha may I apologies to the sensible investors posting on Cientifica that this numpty has chosen to air his personal vendetta with TB herelets start with yawnsome more, you wouldn't know an unless order if you fell over one so what do you think the judge is going to do on 19th December if the two witnesses named in "Order 1." dont attend by 17th December 2013? drunken sailor there is only one laughing stock round here and that is you as you try and explain who is guilty of perjury but am glad that in your post you finally admit to your actually being one person and that person being Neil Ruut which up until now I was not sure that you were. |
Posted at 27/10/2013 21:26 by sharptack drunken sailor says above "in short placing by Feb or back into suspension" well I can tell him his forecast is over generous because I know for a fact the man is already at it, sounding out interest in an immediate secondary round of funding.Same old dilution on the cards here. New funding already 69.5% of the enlarged capital, now set to top 80% within days (see below). Fair enough, a new beginning needs funding but if only something good and profitable would ever come of it. If there's a place he's ever made money for smaller investors, I'd really love to see it. Graphene Investor, remarkably chooses this thread for his first ever post and yet already appears to be quite an oracle on TB and ds. Funny that. He says above "The aim was to raise £250k but up to £500k not £500k as reported in the press)" Was it really? Since he seems so well informed why not tell the whole truth? Among several other conditions needing to be satisfied, what I saw myself said minimum funds of at least £300k were required to be raised "in order for the Company to have sufficient working capital to allow Readmission". Of this, about £55k had already been raised at the time of the placing document. Surely only an insider would therefore talk of aiming to raise £250k [i.e. £250k more]?? Oh dear, GI, soooo transparent! So, far from the misleading impression our insider wants to give out, it's plain they only just got over the line or it would have been curtains! This is a matter of record, not my opinion. No wonder he's straight back out there looking for more - up to £250k more within a couple of weeks I gather, at the same price. The press were not so wrong after all then Graphene mate! It's plain that if £300k was the bare minimum to pay off commitments and also provide minimal working capital to allow the thinnest of going concerns, then all that'll shortly remain from this is the minimal working capital part. At about £550k market cap and surely nothing left from this first tranche for investment purposes, it looks challenging to say the least. Quite what value they can bring in from the anticipated new tranche remains to be seen but if they do manage to get the second tranche away for a full £250k it'll also only come along with another 12.5 shares and a new market cap of about £850k at current sp, against cash assets of only about £300k I'd estimate. Quite a challenge for them then. On the face of it, any investments they could actually afford for cash would have to near double to fill the valuation gap, let alone create new shareholder value. However, that would leave no working cap. I therefore see any acquisitions being mainly for shares. If so, the dilution cycle continues on and on and on. Fact is that most investment companies trade at a discount. That this one is already at a substantial premium to net assets rings alarm bells for near term share price progress. TB's history only accentuates that. |
Posted at 25/10/2013 19:29 by drunken sailor People really ought to read what is actually posted. I said that based on TB's track record there was doubt over whether the money had been raised as announced last Wednesday. The fact that the accounts were not released first thing Tues - they were all signed and ready to go so why not get them out at the beginning of the day? is further indication that everything was not in place when the announcement was made that the money has been raised. I have since made some discreet inquiries and the rumour, and it is only a rumour is that when pressed on whether he had really raised the money it became apparent that he had not and he was given until Mon to actually raise it. Clearly at some stage on Mon he did manage to get just over the minimum line, which meant that a really embarrassing RNS did not need to go out on Tues and instead, after market close, the accounts were finally released. The other part of the rumour was that other parties had been approached in case TB could not raise the money. I cannot provide any evidence to support the rumours I have reported here, so take that as you see fit.So far all the holdings in company RNS's have been existing shareholders reporting they have been diluted below 3%. As yet there have been no RNS's reporting who the placees are, but they will come shortly and then we will see just how many are genuine institutional investors. The fact remains that this is effectively a cashless shell. Once the debts are paid off and the fees are paid to arrange all this there will be very little case left and what there is will disappear in admin costs and fees to the new directors. There is no money for investments. That will need to be raised in a separate placing, or TB may try to use convertible loan notes. The best places to start researching TB's recent track record are TXO and RAM. However I have researched many of his other failed ventures. His own friends and family investment vehicle Hill Street Investments is bankrupt and some of his remaining friends are trying to flog off the assets, most notably Pathfinder minerals, seemingly without success as there has been no threshold crossing RNS from pathfinder. The other major investment HSI has is in RAM, which is suspended largely thanks to TB. The HSI investment in TXO is so small as to be hardly worth selling and their investment in another TB failure - Alpha Prospects is also pretty worthless as there is no market for that Plus listed company's shares. Do not be surprised if any future underscubscribed placing is made up by paper swaps with other TB failed companies - that is how Alpha Prospects got its now worthless RAM shares and HSI got its Alpha Shares. That should be enough to be getting on with researching for now, I will give you a few more leads when you have got that lot under your belts. Yes I do have an agenda and that is as a PI myself I want other PIs to be aware of the issues surrounding TB, to do their own research and then make their own investing decisions based on better information. If anyone uncovers something that puts TB in a good light, then please let everyone know, particularly if you can find just one example of where TB has not lost his investors a whole massive wedge of cash - even his own friends and family, though he does do his best not to lose everything for them, but I will tell you the EAOC story another day. |
Posted at 19/10/2013 10:54 by drunken sailor What if it does not relist on Wed? The thing is TB is rather renowned for claiming he has money that he does not have. I have no knowledge of the Avia situation, but I do know that it is best to actually see the colour of TB's money and then count every note of it before getting too excited."The existing Directors have been informed by the Proposed Directors [Timothy Edward Baldwin] that placing commitments have been received from a number of institutional and other investors in excess of the Minimum Funds" This can be a 100% true statement, but all it means is TB has told the current directors he has raised the money. He said he had a number of institutional investors buy in to TXO, there were no institutional investors who bought in to TXO! not one RNS announcing a new holding of over 3% came after the last TXO placing, which in itself was only just over 50% subscribed but still diluted existing holders by over 50%. The people who did buy in were quick buck traders who dumped the placing straight on to naive PIs. The money he did raise has not gone where he said it would, more was wasted in Tasmania that was put into the flagship project the rest went to repay debt TB said would not need to be repaid and in admin expenses and of course a nice wedge of directors' fees. TXO is desperate for money too and he has also been out on the road in a very lack-lustre campaign in the north of England to drum up interest in TXO (everyone in the city is wise to him now) Sorry to disappoint you, but I would say on TB's track record, not just at TXO but elsewhere, when it comes to raising the money he promises, there is no better than a 50/50 chance of relisting on Wed |
Posted at 29/9/2013 13:18 by nigelsom I have a few of these as a result of an EIS investment. The EIS is less (just) than three years old and thus if the proposed disposal is carried out I will lose the tax break (about the only bit of value left her for me). If the board wished to wait a very short period of time before effecting the transaction, or proposed a mechanism whereby I retain an interest in the soon-to-be disposed business I would be able to retain the tax break.So all things being equal, I shall be voting against all the proposals at the forthcoming General Meeting - it is simpy not in my interests. In any case, this looks like another case of the company advisors trying to salvage enough from the wreckage to be able to continue to draw their fees for a bit longer. I see little merit in any of the proposals. Better, surely, to sell the whole shooting match to ASW and have done with it. Frankly, if it goes bust, any EIS investor will be able to write off the loss against income tax. The proposed actions completely undo the whole point of making an EIS investment....which is supposed to reduce the risk of investing in early stage outfits such as this. Peterhouse have already been associated with another outfit (Intellego which became Digital Learning Marketplace which became Shidu which is now Alpha Returns) which lost me almost all my investment as well as the EIS tax breaks. As with Digital Learning Marketplace (as it was at the time), we were told that they would look for a way in which investors could retain an interest in the underlying business. I'm saying all this just in case anyone else is in the same position as me on this company. Anyway, enough from me, I'm voting no. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
