We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now


It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

CLTV Cellcast Plc

0.00 (0.0%)
Last Updated: 01:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes

Register Free for Streaming Quotes & Tools

Register for Free to get streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more.

Share Name Share Symbol Market Stock Type
Cellcast Plc CLTV London Ordinary Share
  Price Change Price Change % Share Price Last Trade
0.00 0.0% 1.25 01:00:00
Open Price Low Price High Price Close Price Previous Close
more quote information »

Cellcast CLTV Dividends History

No dividends issued between 03 Oct 2013 and 03 Oct 2023

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 15/8/2019 13:12 by philjeans
He wants to stop it being de-listed. Then he'll reverse another similar business into CLTV - hi-tec - ; use up the massive tax losses available and see the shares soar.

Easy peasy - seen it many times.

BUY the dips.
Posted at 01/7/2019 15:14 by smithie6
CEO owns a subsidiary

"on trust" for CLTV

sadly we know the record of the dirs wrt trusting others !!

that either the dirs. havent got a clue who to trust
or are involved

(the cash of the shareholders was moved to Switzerland....to then vanish !!)

either way its not good


the dirs. think the business is pretty useless...& that's why they want to buy it....!!! yeah right.

do I trust them ?

uh. no
Posted at 28/5/2018 09:17 by dalmeny
Some corporate action is needed here to change this appalling board.

I would support that with my 2m+ shares. But this can only be sponsored by Mr Lyons (who appears to be in denial).

Absent that, I can't see any prospects of enhancing shareholder value, eg by way of divi or share price rise.

I will vote at the AGM against all reappointments (except CEO) and against resolutions 7 & 8 re share allotments. 8 is a Special Resolution requiring 75% to pass. Unfortunately I can't attend the AGM.
Posted at 28/2/2018 14:04 by smithie6
Is there any reason to believe or think that changing from co-founder 1 to co-founder 2 might have any effect on

- "more focus increasing the profitability on the core UK business and also avoid any costly overseas investments"

- avoiding any future gross negligence such as the Lexinta investment


Has Andrew left to reduce his likelihood of any legal claim against him for gross negligence ?
(noting the Company Act 2006 requirement for directors to
- act in a prudent manner
- act to safeguard the assets of the company/shareholders

ie. those are legal requirements that directors must comply with !, which imho were completely broken

(sure if directors had put the money into an account at say Lloyds and Lloyds went bust they could argue they were prudent and chose a major bank which they thought inferred low risk and high security
but investing in a garage type scheme with a handful of employees...based in overseas tax havens and where the money being invested would be a % of the assets held ( !!, wtf !! )
shows gross negligence imo

and I recall that the 2 co-founders are linked to tax havens....the company that holds their shares and receives payment from CLTV is registered...not in the UK but in Hong Kong !!

hopefully none of the missing money has been shared with any of the CLTV directors or ex-directors, via a numbered account in some distant tax haven

imho no one would ever find out



And I see from the accounts that £445k was not invested directly in the garage investment mngr Lexinta but in Global Gaming Ltd which then invested in Lexinta !
Hopefully Global Gaming Ltd wasnt another garage based venture with any wives or family involved to obtain benefit from CLTV shareholder assets via pay. At first glance it looks very strange. I note that even with a new CEO who is not one of the 2 co-founders the accounts give no explanation of Global Gaming Ltd & why CLTV invested in it.
The accounts also look materially WRONG wrt Andrew Wilson. An RNS stated he had left the company & is no longer a director but he is still listed as a director & there is no mention that he has left the bod !! (although his pay has halved).

Imho the 2 co-founders & M.Neville need to be removed from the company for the shareholders to have any confidence in the correct & transparent operation of this co.

"for the general benefit of all the shareholders",

as required by the law.
Posted at 22/1/2018 11:39 by lyonst5
Hi Barry, I think we can all say that the Lexinta debacle has been very unfortunate.
Understandably its more a kick of confidence in the judgement/abilities of the management than the actual monetary loss as it would have been avoidable with better diligence and its more galling that this excess money should have been paid out to shareholders via a dividend.
Im not too positive that anything can be recovered from Lexinta but at the end of the day the company has sufficient cash and now better profitability with renegotiated Arqiva deal and better revenue from web based business. The Kenya lottery contract is a steady money earner and maybe we can see governments age verification brought in the next few months help the bottom line as well.
With Craig replacing Andrew i hope now there more focus increasing the profitability on the core UK business and also avoid any costly overseas investments.
Posted at 11/1/2018 09:47 by smithie6
interesting imo that there is no mention at all on this forum of the FD or the FDs name.

they are invisible...unknown

which imo shows phps that they are a puppet under the ctrl of 2 founders

if so it shows the FD & the BOD havent complied with the listed co. regs. nor with Company's Act 2006.

imo the only solution for CLTV (& shareholders)
is that everyone involved in supporting the Lexinta investment needs to be replaced unless reqd. for specific sector or tech. skills that no one else in the co. can provide, & if allowed to stay for that reason then moved out of bod to be an employee/manager.

(& imo a shareholder representative should be put on the bod to ensure it is run correctly & respects Company Act in the future. (history of 1M going here and there, Brasil, then Lexinta investment written off (700k) shows a cowboy attitude imo and/or intentional complicity/theft)
Posted at 07/12/2017 20:56 by smithie6
porkie pies in 1 RNS imo

Sept. 'requested the funds back after Lexinta said it was selling the assets in the fund'

while the web blog , via link posted by someone, mentioned legal action against Lexinta back in spring 2017, months before, by clients that didnt get their money back. Which I am 100% sure that CLTV would have known about, partly since Atlas ( big hlder in CLTV) has also invested money in Lexinta...ie. appears like everyone knows everyone...in small club....so they will/would communicate & share important news like legal action vs Lexinta.


& what micro fund mngr ever liquidates assets in a fund !!
knowing that clients will want their cash back & then the fund mgr doesnt get 1-2% of assets as yearly income...so cant pay wages !!..fund mngr try to increase AUM rather than reduce them. imo


no money received after numerous weeks

& clearly no proof provided to say that UBS has 70% ( or 100% !!) of the clients' funds after selling the shares held by Lexinta....or that proof would be quoted

so...surely it appears that all the money is lost !?
Posted at 07/12/2017 13:21 by barryendean
Interesting though is that they expect to make a full year profit. Even if this is £5k, it not only reverses the £145k loss in the first six months, it suggests a minimum current run rate profit at least of £300k. This is the first time since I held these shares (a long time), that they have made this level of profit. Remember this is the minimum they should be making. If perhaps they report £100k of full year, it means the 2nd half generate £245K or an annualised £490k. The current Market Cap is just £3m. Add in the potential new activity such as the further development of the lottery services, then perhaps CLTV has finally been able to deliver a going concern and beyond a growing business.

However, an bunch of morons for losing £500k of our money on some spiv investment scheme. Bizarre behaviours particularly when cash should be so sacred to such a micro business. We did not invest for the Board to think they were running a hedge fund. The cash should have stayed in the bank!

Posted at 19/11/2017 12:48 by smithie6
that discusses a fund investing in OPIs

whereas CLTV 2015 accounts talk of investing in Lexinta treasury fund

which in theory should all be zero risk, surely....assuming that invested in Germany Govt treasuries and not in Venez. or Argentine treasury !!

unless it was a Ponzi

71.5% of CLTV is not in public hands (in reality it is higher imo)
so the big hldrs can do whatever they want to the bod imo and demand whatever explanations they want from the bod, which is good. The bod must dance and perform as reqd. or the big hldrs could threaten to remove them.
Posted at 15/11/2017 13:49 by smithie6
some notes on Lexinta

Zug adviser (Lexinta) expands to Hungary and prepares for acquisition

"There are four members in the Budapest team and they report to Bismark Badilla, president and founder of Lexinta. Commenting on the new branch, Badilla said: .."

The Budapest office follows the opening of a Hong Kong office in May 2015.


19 Sept 2017.
zug-adviser-sets-up-alternative-investments-desk in Zurich
with experienced ppl
so doesnt look like they are going bust or operating from a garage



If they have 4 staff in Budapest and > 4 in Switzerland
then they have a fair amount of costs to pay....
so must have a large amount of assets under management
so the amount to be paid back to CLTV is quite negligible imo as a % of funds under management at Lexinta

as I recall the funds were only repayable once per year (although perhaps that can be broken if accept losing any % return for the part of that year if take out early)

(if anyone was planning to do a runner with client money then imo they would not go employing different experienced fin. staff and opening expensive offices in different countries, which surely just adds control and restrictions and is a drain on any funds
so, I doubt that the money has vapourised...

but it seems a real problem since CLTV has decided to put the non-payment in the hands of the Swiss regulator !

Your Recent History
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

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

Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com

V: D: 20231003 08:05:10