Intercytex Share Discussion Threads

[squintyflinty] 16/4/2010 11:48

Will ICX holders automatically receive new shares in the newly formed company?.Any thoughts Doc?

[the_doctor] 16/4/2010 09:46

'I and many investors purchased after the trials'

at a time when it was very unclear how they'd survive!

Sure, they could have gone on doing bits and bobs, but it wouldnt have brought in enough cash. They had no choice.

Grant funding doesnt really bring any profit. It just helps pay some of the non-admin-type costs.

'Management just gave up, they could not be bothered to raise more funds and decided it would be easier to set up an unlisted company'

You have no idea how hard they tried. Do you not think it might have been hard to raise more funds!?
'These funds are being used to support ongoing operational costs and working
capital requirements of the Company, but are insufficient to allow continued development of Intercytex' remaining products. The Directors therefore believe that the best course of action is to sell all of the remaining assets of the Group and return excess funds (if any) to Shareholders.'

The unlisted company is just to make winding down cheaper.
I know some chumps on this thread have made out that the directors will have some shiny new company, but that's nonsense - there will be NOTHING

Do you not think the insts involved would have kicked up a fuss if they felt no effort had been put in!?

The only possibility I can think of is that the directors are content to just sell off things cheaply and quickly, bothered only about getting enough money to pay what's owed to them. While it's possible, bear in mind that the directors still involved would in reality still want to get the most they can and do a good job.

Look at what Cobra had to sell assets for too

Re mistakes, the only error after the PIII trial was perhaps that they bought Axordia. Maybe ask why they didnt instead save the funding cash.
Given they got £700-775k back from Axordia, I'd imagine that the company was on track to go bust with/without this.

As a suggestion, have you spoken to the company about it all. You ought to.

Something to bear in mind is that IF ABH lost a big contract, then if the path to profitability was not clear enough and it couldnt raise funds, the exact same would happen there.

[philwill] 16/4/2010 09:39

Hyper....it didn't matter to the management.... either way they still came out the winners

only the pi's got screwed

[the_doctor] 16/4/2010 09:18

Simply shows your lack of understanding and investment decisions based on mis-informed emotion

ICX was doomed after the Phase III failure.
You opted to invest in that PIII study.

It may have been poorly designed, I dont know, but that certainly wasnt Herrmann's fault given he was a financial bod and joined when the trial was virtually finished.
Your view is based on nothing but idiocy I'm afraid.

What was wrong with the Pfizer deal Herrmannn would have been part of?

Essentially, you're in a sulk because you struggle to accept that the assets just werent able to be sold off for much. Sorry about that, but it doesnt mean it was anyone's fault.

That's all I'll say.

[vivgav] 16/4/2010 09:12

your welcome to him........I certainly would not buy in now.

[the_doctor] 16/4/2010 09:11

'Why did they mention he was at ICX but did not add in what happened to ICX?............'

why should they?
they mention his name, but they dont mention his height.
they didnt mention that he helped secure a deal with Pfizer at ICX.
Anyone was able to then google ICX. I did and I'm not at all concerned, since it's clear he did what he could.

IF they mentioned that ICX went pop, they'd then have to go on and add that Herrmann was not at fault

I honestly dont know why folk like you even tried to make out Herrmann was a bad egg.
I suspect it's because your understanding of what happened at ICX is so limited that you dont get that the PIII failure had nothing to do with him and after that, it was only going one way.
Similarly, nobody has given any argument as to why Herrmann didnt do a good job (as far as CFO was to) of selling the assets.

Philwill's argument was that they turned down a full offer - he just made that up and Piper Jaffray were involved and stated no offer came
Digger seems to think that there was fraud like Meldex
and you seem to blame a CFO that clearly had no role in a PIII trial!

Madness.

I'd be a pretty good doctor I expect fwiw

[vivgav] 15/4/2010 22:58

Doc....... answer this one. Why did they mention he was at ICX but did not add in what happened to ICX?............WE ALL KNOW WHY!........ selective wording RNS to say the least....... tell it as it is. I hope your not a real Doctor!!!!!!!!!!

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 15:58

Haha.

Have you even read that cancellation document!?

The company broke down because of the PIII failure - what else do you think they could have done?
The assets are all to be sold and the company wound down, what shiny new company could come back?!
Piper Jaffray state there was no formal offer - why would they lie?
The directors will all have lost their jobs and simply got what they were contractually owed - how are they 'winners'?
Herrmann joined in Aug 2008 - how could the PIII failure have been his fault?


Like I said digger, think what you want.
I've made my points very clear. Because I have no agenda, or problem with the truth, I'm more than happy to discuss.
Perhaps you'll note that your chum Philwill cant explain why he says a full offer was made.
It was the same with SLN. Ignorant simply rubbishing what they didnt like or didnt understand. Funnily, now most accept how important IP is to SLN - just what I was saying from the very start!

If YOU are even remotely genuine, then you'll be able to give answers to the list of questions above. Hell, try it in your head even.

Good bye.

[digger27] 15/4/2010 15:35

Doc - and you can carry on in your own deluded world as well old chap. I shan't bother replying any more as I said before, you would argue white is black and black is white whenever it suits. No wonder the guys over at SLN marked your card.

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 14:52

Daytraders - 15 Apr'10 - 14:50 - 2447 of 2448
vivgav - 15 Apr'10 - 07:05 - 2421 of 2446
Bad news this morning for Silence Theraputics!
What you on about ?, they had good news and are up today


Daytraders
Read the posts. A bunch of them here cant accept that Intercytex went pop after the Phase III failure, so instead have created some bizarre nonsense that the directors ganged up to rip them off!

As such, folk like vivgav try to make out that SLN is now cursed for having some new crook director.

The reality is of course nothing like that as I've explained, but they'll carry on in their deluded world!

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 14:50

'obviously a paid lackey'

same old demented tw@ts

Philwill, I based my views on facts.

- fact that it was primarily down to the PIII failure
- the fact that they'd sell the assets for what they could
- the fact that Herrmann only joined in Aug 2008

Instead, you make up a formal offer that never was.
You then claim that the directors will refloat a shiny company, when a) it's being wound down with all remaining proceeds going to shareholders b) there will be nothing left!

If you really cant understand that, then quite frankly you deserve to lose money on companies like this Philwill. What a chump.

[daytraders] 15/4/2010 14:50

vivgav - 15 Apr'10 - 07:05 - 2421 of 2446

Bad news this morning for Silence Theraputics!


What you on about ?, they had good news and are up today.

[philwill] 15/4/2010 14:29

doc filtered..for no other reason than he's obviously a paid lackey

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 13:56

Think what you want digger.

At the end of the day, you're the one that lost money here.

If you want to make out it was a big rip off, then that's up to you.
Your alternative is to be grown up about it and maybe learn something.

The only winners may have been the pharma's picking up assets for cheap.

The directors and staff were owed their pay. Why should they not be?
It was in their contract and none of them could have done anything about the Phase III trial once it was well underway.

From memory, you're not a bad sort. I'm sorry about the way ICX has gone, but I just dont see any point in twisting the story.

[digger27] 15/4/2010 13:51

Doc - just because it's a different company doesn't mean it was run by angels trying their level best to enhance shareholder value. Only a small set of winners here and it's not us. You obviously have an agenda in defending the directors actions here and dont tell me it's your sense of fair play!!

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 13:40

'Seem to remember that lot spouting loads of truths via RNS so why should this be any different?'

er, because it's a different company digger?

MDX was a fraud. There isnt even a hint of that here.

Nobody has been screwed over here. Quite simply, you invested in a company with a Phase III product that then failed.

Seriously, the fact you and others are blaming directors - some of which couldnt have had anything to do with it, is pathetic.

It isnt as if the directors did a pre-pack admin to pick up all the amazing assets for nothing.
The reality is that the assets couldnt be sold for much.
Philwell is making himself feel better with takes of offers, but Piper Jaffray were involved and clearly no offer came about - why make up that it did??

You either look at it sensibly, or you just throw around blame. Up to you.

[philwill] 15/4/2010 13:33

i've read it doc..in summary it says the shareholders are screwed and the directors get whatever is available..its the usual load of bull, excuses and "we'll do the best we can for the shareholders"...totally meaningless document

and the re registration as a private company isnt the directors getting a new company to play with...dont make me laugh...we've been done up like a kipper

[digger27] 15/4/2010 13:28

Bloody hells bells, where did that document come from? They must have gone to the same school as Messrs. Trevillion, Murray et al. Seem to remember that lot spouting loads of truths via RNS so why should this be any different?

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 13:10

It seems some like Phil maybe havent read this?

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 12:32

Nick

As far as I'm aware, in theory, yes.

However, the plan is to wind it up, so I dont think it'll go public again.

There is no 'shiny new company' that Philwill/others seem to make out.
I can only assume that they make up stuff like this and full offers for the company, because they're desperate to create a scenario in which ICX's directors did them over.
From an objective review, that simply doesnt seem to have been the case.

the assets sales will unfortunately not recoup as much value as many will have hoped, so your investment will probably still largely be lost.

[nick of the north] 15/4/2010 12:25

Doc

Are you suggesting that my investment in ICX isn't yet lost and that if the private company goes public again I will have shares in it?

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 12:12

'no doc i'm not'

Because you made it up Phil!
Made up because you cant accept that just maybe nobody wanted to buy the whole company and selling assets for what they could was the best strategy.

I've very clearly said what was to blame.

The PIII failure primarily.
Maybe the trial design was flawed. Maybe the PII data werent good enough.
However, that wasnt Herrmann's fault was it
& in any case, you didnt have to invest if the PIII product was so obviously doomed.

Other than that, the other issue is assets selling for less than you'd like, but I dont see any reason to think that Herrmann wouldnt have sold them for as much as possible

Re going private, as stated 1) they had to 2) it is good for LTHs not bad

[philwill] 15/4/2010 12:08

no doc i'm not and if Hermann munsters not to blame for icx's demise then who is...fairies at the bottom of the garden?

[the_doctor] 15/4/2010 12:01

PhilWill, are you going to explain this 'firm offer' or was that bs made up to make out you got stuffed?