Meldex Share Discussion Threads

[the bull] 18/6/2018 23:19

Did the FCA or whatever it was at the time give any grounds for not investigating? does the freedom of information act apply to find out the reason why?

[the bull] 18/6/2018 23:07

All in all we lost millions of pounds collectively from this sham of a company, do you think it can be visited Lexuss2 ?

[the bull] 18/6/2018 23:01

Just a reminder as to how far this got. I had had my fill of meldex and xgel losses of £250K+ and don't think I offered anything, seemed like most of us didn't. Should not have had to be this way. Was there never any no win no fee companies that would take it on. Did Art Williams get burned or maybe he came out the right side and was happy not to get involved.

One year on, is there nothing that can be done?

[the bull] 18/6/2018 22:56

Lexuss2 - 24 Jun 2017 - 20:30:56 - 5229 of 5319 The Meldex Fraud(Moderated) - MDX
Niplad (Nick Powell) was 20 metres from the second bomb that was exploded at Brussels Airport on 22 March 2016. When I visited him in hospital in Leuven he told me he actually saw the whites of the bombers eyes before the bomb was detonated; knew exactly what was about to happen; but couldn't get out of the way fast enough.

It was nothing short of a miracle that he survived the initial explosion and nothing short of superlative, extremely professional and very compassionate medical care that got him to hospital before he died from his injuries. Even so he spent many months in Belgium, enduring multiple operations and many surgical procedures.

Like me, he now has a completely different perspective on what is, and what is not, important in life. Like me, he is also realistic in his belief in what more can be achieved without substantive funding. That funding was asked for over a year ago on this board and other than one shareholder who did offer financial support, it was met with a resounding silence.

I have moved on, but if there is anyone out there who is prepared to (substantially) fund further action, then I will hand over all files and evidence to that person, once satisfied he/her is completely genuine.

I apologise for no heads on the platter - it was not for a lack of effort.




DC
Lexuss2 - 20 Dec 2015 - 21:08:13 - 4767 of 5319 The Meldex Fraud(Moderated) - MDX
I have received a number of emails asking if I could give some sort of progress report as to ‘where we areâ€482; at the moment and if ‘anything is still happeningâS64;™.

Firstly, I cannot over emphasise how much the road has been littered to obstruct our passage - and the very people charged to protect investorâ̈́4;™s interests were the ones to have [unfairly] placed most of that litter

It is my firm conviction the organisations with official legal power to make decisions and force people to obey the laws of the market, failed to do this in respect of Meldex and its shareholders. That failure started in late 2007 and was compounded over a period of years, so much so that any possibility of VOLUNTARY retrospective action occurring after such a lapse of time would be nothing short of a miracle. Voluntary retrospective action would only serve to expose the substantial inadequacies of the relevant authorities and those persons charged with their conduct - and turkeys donâ€482;t vote for Christmas.

For me, the most revealing aspect has been the arrogance (bordering on contempt) shown by one particular public authority (POTAM) to private investors who were merely seeking simple answers to simple questions. Those investors lodged over 50 specific complaints about the conduct of Meldex, its officers and others connected to it. Those complaints were over and above any other complaints they had made about a concert party and a breach of Rule 9 of the Code and clear evidence was provided to demonstrate that a dozen or more other rules of the Code had been likely breached during the periods POTAM was responsible for policing MDX. Taken in isolation some of those complaints were relatively minor and only deserving of a ‘slap on the wrist’ - but many of them were of sufficient gravity to warrant severe sanction.

The following is an example of one of those complaints:

Complaint 3.4.6.4

On 2 January 2008 MDXâ€482;s broker released information advising shareholders and the market of the directorsâS64;™ expectations in respect of future prospects and the likely profitability of the company.

Five months later the directors held a meeting to discuss the 2007 results and current trading position, prior to any statement being released to the market. The meeting was held on 14 May 2008 and the minutes of that meeting clearly state:

“It was agreed that trading could not be referred to as being strong or in line with market expectations�.

One day after that meeting (15 May 2008) the directors released the 2007 preliminary results by RNS. That RNS also commented on current trading and said:

“Trading to date in 2008 is broadly in line with management expectations�.

Prior to the 15 May 2008 announcement, the only expectations released to the market were those released on 2 January 2008 by the companyâ€;™s broker. Those expectations had been compiled from information and expectations given to the broker by MDX management. Consequently, management expectations and market expectations were one and the same.

The minutes of the directorsâS64;™ meeting of 14 May 2008 evidence that in private the MDX directors were aware of adverse trading conditions and had agreed trading was neither strong, or in line with market (management) expectations. However the statement released one day later (“;trading to date in 2008 is broadly in line with management expectationsâ€�) did not reflect that awareness and infers a contrary view to that which was accurate and truthful.

The 15 May statement appears to have been disseminated in a manner designed to deceive and to create or maintain a false market in MDX securities (Contrary to Principle 4 of the Code and Article 3.1 of Directive 2004/25/EC)




The above complaint appeared quite straightforward - independent evidence (board minutes) was available to prove the directors agreed trading was well below expectations and an independent RNS was available to show the directors issued a trading update deliberately couched in a manner to convey the opposite. As a consequence a false market had to have been created in the shares of Meldex; and the creation of a false market is considered a very severe breach of the Code

Despite numerous communications to POTAM the Panel’s Executive refused to inform us if the above complaint had been upheld or dismissed and similarly refused to give any information in respect of the other (non Rule 9) complaints we had lodged with it. POTAM’s Executive also refused to supply any information to give us reasonable confidence that each of our complaints had been investigated to a proper conclusion.

Having been repeatedly met by an effective wall of silence, we eventually determined to appeal POTAM’S refusal to supply reasonable information to us. As some of the complaints we had tabled were minor in nature; and as we wished to avoid any chance of obfuscation over these minor matters; we limited our appeal to one extremely serious complaint and referred to it in our appeal document as ‘The Test ComplaintâS64;™. Our appeal asked that we be told whether the ‘Test ComplaintâS64;™ had been deemed false by the Panel’s Executive, or if it had not been investigated to a definite conclusion by the Panel’s Executive, or if it had been upheld in whole or in part by the Panel’s Executive.

In the first instance our appeal was made through the office of Sir Gordon Langley, the Chairman of the Panel’s Hearings Committee. This involved many pages of argument and counter argument, all of which concluded with Sir Gordon Langley rejecting our appeal on the basis “we were not persons with sufficient interest (in the requested information) to justify its disclosureâ364;�.

We then appealed his decision with the Panel’s Independent Appeal Board, chaired by Lord Collins of Mapesbury. Numerous pages of argument and counter argument were once again involved, but this time we achieved a margin of success. Lord Collins overruled Sir Gordon Langley and adjudged we were persons who did have a ‘sufficient interestâ̈́4;™ in the information we were seeking. Nevertheless, he then dismissed our appeal and did so on the grounds that whilst the Panel could have willingly given us much more information than they did (quote), there existed no basis on which they could be forced into doing so. (If anyone wishes to read the 20-page appeal judgment of Lord Collins, please email me on the above address and I will send, subject to certain conditions, a redacted copy).

As matters currently stand;

1 POTAM (a public authority) does not need to reply to anyone who makes a complaint to it about the actions of another person or company.

2. POTAM (a public authority) does not need to substantiate the scope, or quality, or quantity, of any investigation into a complaint made to it.

3. POTAM (a public authority) cannot be freely held to account by any member of the public it is supposed to serve.

4. No right whatsoever exists to any member of the public, either statutorily or in common law, that empowers them to ordinarily challenge ANYTHING done (or not done) by POTAM’s Executive.

(I believe the above also applies to the FCA)

We have now spent countless hours on this matter and have submitted in excess of a thousand pages of evidence/written argument to the authorities. Although we have tried to limit our expenditure we have also still collectively spent many thousands of pounds.

The road we are now able to travel without incurring substantial expense is pretty much ended. As matters stand there exists no current legislation to force POTAM to answer our question(s) and all reasonable avenues to persuade them to do so have been exhausted. We could continue to write to MPs or even demonstrate on the steps of Paternoster Square, but I believe neither would achieve anything worthwhile.

The only positive avenue that remains is to petition for a judicial review of the Panel’s conduct and their actions (or likely inactions) so as to establish if each complaint has been properly investigated and if each proven complaint has received a punishment appropriate to its severity (which if proven at least 17 did not). If it can be established the complaints were effectively whitewashed or if properly investigated, the punishment was inappropriately lenient, then the Panel, who publicly place great store on the importance of complete adherence to the Code, should be deemed guilty of acting in bad faith. As a consequence, Panel members would forfeit all personal indemnity granted them by statute for the losses or damages their bad faith had caused and a claim could be made against them directly.

However, to adopt such a strategy to a conclusion is expensive. The Panel, not being short of funds, could/would employ the very best litigants to fight our petition and defend their corner. We do not have that luxury and would need to raise a minimum of £100,000, before we could realistically countenance the start of such an action.

I suspect the appetite for funding such an operation is no longer out there but, just in case it is, I would invite any one who is willing to financially support a serious legal challenge to indicate the level of that support by emailing me on [e-mail] before 11 January.

To demonstrate my own commitment I am prepared to contribute £10,000 to the fund. If sufficient support is forthcoming it would be my intention to form a private limited company to move this forward, membership of which would be via ownership of one or more of its shares priced at (say) £500 each. The company would pay no salaries to any of its officers, who must all agree to work pro bona and the formation of the company would be subject to a minimum subscription to 200 of its shares. All funds raised will be used solely for the purpose of petitioning for judicial review and then for legal charges that are incurred to present our case, should such a review be granted.

A serious legal challenge is now the only option and if there is insufficient financial support forthcoming to support one, I have to regrettably say that after seven years I have come to the end of my Meldex road.

Finally, I would like to place on record my indebtedness to Mike Martin (Mad Mike) and Nick Powell (Niplad), both of whom have spent their own money and sacrificed many hours in pursuing matters with me.


A very Happy Christmas to all innocent Meldex shareholders.

[grahamite2] 12/6/2018 11:48

Civil servants can't be sacked. What incentive is there for them to do their jobs properly, or at all? The FCA might as well be wound up tomorrow for all the good it does.

[bargainbob] 12/6/2018 10:48

If everyone can state their World Cup Winner, top goal scorer and number of goals . I will donate plusone coins to the winner . Add Entry on the Bargainbob Faucet Thread.

[waywardlad] 12/6/2018 10:46

Hope everyone is working and rebuilding their lives, 10 years on!

[bargainbob] 10/6/2018 18:03

A final summary would have been good . Though maybe not legally possible.

[bargainbob] 06/6/2018 12:02

Get 5 bob , free coins

[prambigear] 04/6/2018 21:01

Perhaps longer life though. At least.... longer than this thread!

[bargainbob] 04/6/2018 20:59

Pleased to hear that Prambigear , I have all the wealth of 800 plusonecoins but sadly miss the banter of this thread :-)

I guess plusonecoins cannot buy happiness.

[prambigear] 04/6/2018 20:51

Only the thread bargainbob. Only the thread.

[bargainbob] 04/6/2018 16:24

Oh dear has everyone died ?

[prambigear] 25/5/2018 11:05

I think I have sufficient.... thanks all the same.

[elpirata] 25/5/2018 10:26

free bb misunderstanding alert

pram, I believe the avatar bargainbob is advising the avatar prambigear that said avatar bargainbob has trousered no less than 60 plusonecoin on single said day

as to what you can do with it - swap for prm share certs?

[prambigear] 25/5/2018 10:20

#93969 How did I get it? Where is it? What can I do with it?

[bullinachinashop3] 24/5/2018 07:52

yep time to move on, lifes too short. all the best chaps.

[jlw137] 24/5/2018 05:17

I have always appreciated the guys mentioned and others for their endless effort who tried to bring this fraud out (at the time and since) and get action taken upon those responsible but even with all the evidence available nothing really happened. Fraud is fraud and measures have always (during and and after a crime) been in place to stop fraud and deal with those responsible but it has never happened... Anyway...Best wishes to some of the guys who still look in on this board... I have sort of moved on... Clawing some of the money back though other stock.. I sincerely hope you have too.

[the bull] 23/5/2018 23:13

Maybe Lexxus, Madmike etc could comment, they tried very hard to get some justice. The passage of time suggests that they have thrown in the towel and who could bloody blame them. Shall we all for once and all accept and move on or is there a "Cunning Plan"

[bargainbob] 23/5/2018 18:53

The sugar man