Mereo Biopharma Share Discussion Threads

[vixen] 05/11/2007 10:01

Thanks momentos. nothing on my level 2 from ADVFN. Despite the madness they look like buy's to me.

[momentos] 05/11/2007 09:52

Operating, but gone mad.



Seems to think you can get 5500 shares for 55 quid!


05/11/2007 08:52:11 100.75 5,500 O 55.41
05/11/2007 08:19:34 100.80 1,000 O 10.08

[vixen] 05/11/2007 09:32

Plus market not operating today?

[jamesjoel] 04/11/2007 16:03

What turnover/profits are we looking for at the interim stage to keep us on track for the full year results?

[eagle eye3] 04/11/2007 13:28

I think we all know the results, or a good idea anyway, I am not going to panic while I wait for confirmation, perhaps they cannot agree on the dividend payment, ha
good luck all

[jamesjoel] 04/11/2007 07:10

20th November same date as EGM !

[marben100] 03/11/2007 18:15

jamesjoel,

I have the circular bit can find no interims date mentioned?

I hasten to add that I am not conerned or surprised if the interims slip a bit, relative to last year, given the absence of an FD.

Regards,

Mark

[frasermurray] 03/11/2007 15:55

i think this share has bottomed out now and should rise into the results which should be ok. it makes a good profit year on year and look undervalued at this level--imoh dyor. i will buy some monday at £1 aim to sell in dec at £1.30 target

[momentos] 03/11/2007 14:38

It took you 24 hours to make up that response?

[ba5hir is back] 03/11/2007 10:02

momentus I have been bearish on Wagon JQV MTG AXS for weeks. Now I admit I have only posted here a short while but so what?

Its just I have a contact that has given me info so I thought I would let you lot know.

I said there would be no RNS and you did not believe me.

Thats a fact...one due but it aint come. The market does not like late results work it out for yourself.

[vixen] 03/11/2007 09:16

would seem sensible to have them just before or on the same day as EGM as management will want to be able to discuss them and not just say wait and see.
The market would appreciate an RNS ahead of them though.

They are obviously soaking up sells at this level, we appear at or very close to the lowest they want to go.

[jamesjoel] 03/11/2007 06:32

Dan de lion

MM told me the interim date was in the recent circular so you may be right with the EGM date !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dan de lion] 02/11/2007 17:44

If you go back thro` MPH`s results you can see that as they have become bigger the results have gradually slipped back, this years finals were two weeks later for instance, last year they did well to hold the Interims close to the previous year but that was a slippage on the year before, I would expect the Interims to have at least a weeks slippage on last year with Greenmark complicating the issue.
So I would expect a date being issued next week, they could in fact publish the results on the day of the EGM.
IMHO.

[thepinkpanther] 02/11/2007 17:37

and Ba5hir's prediction on TFC before they took off and doubled

ARG's prediction before they went from 50p to 1 pound

as u say he seems to suggest the drops once they have happened and then nearly all double from when he says they'll fall further

anyway, drop shed load of bombs and one will hit i suppose

the other thing he always seems to want to find companies to go down, as opposed to finding companies which may outperform the market's perceptions

odd thinking, why not do both if u r of a pessimistic nature!!!

[momentos] 02/11/2007 16:49

NOt sure what happened to ADVFN's trade reporting / chart. Trades today ex Plus:

16:27 5,000 @ 100.00p
16:24 25,000 @ 100.00p
12:03 1,600 @ 100.05p
10:42 25,000 @ 100.00p
10:35 25,000 @ 100.00p

We fell back to 100.5p thanks to Mr 25k. Good weekend all.

[momentos] 02/11/2007 14:53

Funny re-reading the old Boateng judgements. Remember, there were two disputes:

1. About OB stock still being sold in Debenhams once the agreement started and about OB selling surplus stock in Bicester - Marchpole mostly lost.

2. About OB trying to terminate the agreement back in December 2004 - Boateng lost, costs against.

The original transcript did not include the "Post Judgement Discussion". Mildly entertaining stuff about lawyers billing practices. A couple of classics about phone records & arriving in stretch limos.....



POST JUDGMENT DISCUSSION

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Mr Green, then you succeed both in your appeal and in resisting the respondent's notice because that is how it is accomplished(?).

MR GREEN: My Lord, if I could mention costs? There are two schedules if you Lordships wish to see them.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: No, we have both sides' bill of costs.

LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: I would just like to say that I have not appreciated that this case was one in which Mr Rands(?) was involved and I should just say that I do know him but not well. I hope that is clear.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: It was only on looking at the bill of costs that even that has become apparent. It was not known before judgment. Mr Green, you apply in the amount shown on your draft bill?

MR GREEN: We do, my Lord. This is a commercial matter and part of a long-running dispute between the parties. Costs over a variety of proceedings have worked both ways. There is no reason why our submission why costs should not be order in favour of my client.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: First of all, on the principle of which way the costs should go Mr Arnold. Do you wish to say anything?

MR ARNOLD: My Lords, I do not think I can resist my learned friend having the costs of the appeal on the basis that –

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: What do you say about the amount?

MR ARNOLD: Before I come to the amount can I just mention, so that I do not forget later, I want to mention two things. One is I will have an application for permission to appeal. Secondly, I need to clarify the position in relation to the cross-undertaking. So can I just mark those so that we do not forget to come back them.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: All right.

MR ARNOLD: So far as the amounts are concerned, could you take two schedules side by side ...

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Yes, we have begun to do that.

MR ARNOLD: And could I point out first of all my learned friend's schedule is over double ours and that is despite the fact that we have had two counsel, whereas he is on his own. Now not only that one also needs to ...

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Mr Arnold, let us be quite short about this. We have looked at this bill of costs. We think it is outrageous.

MR ARNOLD: I am obliged.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: The only question is whether we are going to engage in major surgery here or whether we should send it off for a costs assessment.

MR ARNOLD: I would invite you to send it on for a costs assessment.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Well, I do not think unless Mr Green can dissuade us, that you are going to have much trouble about that. Let us see what Mr Green says.

MR GREEN: My instructing solicitor asks that in those circumstances it should be assessed, your honour.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Yes, well I would like to ask you one or two things about it, if you will take instructions Mr Green before we send it off. It includes at the bottom of the first page attendances on the respondent, that is on the other side, which my arithmetic tells me totals 33.2 hours. Take it from me for the moment. It is not wrong at all by much. The other side by contrast have a bill for attendances upon you, which I assume is holding the other end of the same telephone, totalling 5.2 hours. Are you able to explain this difference?

MR GREEN: Well, it would include work on documents. So it is not just a matter of inter-parties communication.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Well, attendances upon appellants is different from work on documents. It is distinguishable.

MR GREEN: It is the writing or preparing of letters and maybe that the different –

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: So it may be writing letters.

MR GREEN: Yes. And another head of work on documents.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Well, that you are saying was preparing the files for the court.

MR GREEN: It may just be there is a certain laxity in the headings and they are not sufficiently descriptive.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Work on documents, turning to that, is 166 hours. Preparing the documents which run to a couple of arch binders. On the question of pure law ,it has taken two hours to hear argument and half an hour to give judgment on. 166 hours. £31,000 worth of work.

MR GREEN: My Lord ...

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Well, somebody will have to account for that. The large number of fee earners in the first block starts with well-remunerated partners and includes some trainees billed variously at £125 and £135 per hour. Are you sure that is what the trainees are paid? Per hour?

MR GREEN: I am told only that it is about £30,000 per year is their annual salary.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: But how many hours work a week?

MR GREEN: On average in the region of 40.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Thank you.

LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: I have to say that it was the figures for counsel's fees that alarmed me most of all. But it will be a matter after all for the Taxing Master. There is a grave discrepancy on both sides. I appreciate that defendants have much more work in preparing the opening of the appeal but the figures are very different indeed, and I appreciate also of course that there was a change of counsel which leads to extra costs.

MR ARNOLD: I think my Lord and my Lady's comments really indicate that this is a matter for assessment.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: You have two qualified solicitors with you in court, as I anticipate in the adjournment(?)? Is that really necessary?

MR GREEN: This is an important matter involving a long-term relationship between the client and ...

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Thank you, Mr Green. We will not pronounce anything definitive on it but we are going to flag up our concerns. You shall have your costs to be assessed.

MR GREEN: To be assessed.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: I am just going to say something on the record about that.

MR GREEN: And of course for the court below.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Yes, what about the costs below, Mr Arnold?

MR ARNOLD: Again, I do not see how I can resist that your honour.

MR GREEN: While just on the subject of costs could I again put down a marker, my Lords do not need to deal with it, but something my learned friend did not in the event take you to was that a second witness statement of Mr Tufman(?) was put in in support of the appeal which was -- there was never any basis for it to be admitted. We objected to it and it was not in the event relied on but obviously we will be saying that the costs of that should be disallowed, but again that is not a matter which my Lords need deal with.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Very well.

LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: Raised on assessment.

MR GREEN: Yes. Quite so.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: For assessment. And you then have an application. Two applications, Mr Arnold?

MR ARNOLD: My Lords one is an application and one is a question of clarification. Can I deal with the clarification first?

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Yes.

MR ARNOLD: I pointed out in my supplementary skeleton argument that the judge made an order for an enquiry on the cross-undertaking. There was an application for permission to appeal from that order which was refused by Jonathan Parker LJ and there was no renewal of that application by my learned friend's clients. So that order stands. What was in dispute before my Lords and what my Lords have decided is whether on that cross-undertaking we could raise the argument -- on that enquiry sorry, we could raise the argument sought to be raised and protected by the respondent's notice. You have determined that and obviously unless we are successful in another place we cannot reopen that but I just wish it to be clearly understood, because certain of my Lord's observations in the judgment might have given the impression that there was hereafter to be no enquiry on the cross-undertaking at all. That stands. It is just a question of what exactly(?) it would be. The point we were particularly concerned about on this appeal, this is not open to it.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: As I understand it you are making a statement for the record about your position, Mr Arnold?

MR ARNOLD: Just so there is no misunderstanding, yes.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Yes.

MR ARNOLD: My Lords, so far as the other matter is concerned I do have an application because in my submission there is a point worthy of their Lordships' consideration on the respondent's notice because the effect of my Lords' decision is that a party that has given an undertaking on a temporary, interim basis, purely on the balance of convenience, has now been held to substantively vary its rights under the contract and in my submission that is a surprising result and it is not a just result, and it is one that your Lordships should be asked to consider whether the statute has a correct legal basis. (pause)

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: We propose, as indicated, to remit the assessment of costs to the costs judge. The appeal was listed for four hours at the parties' request. Counsel helpfully were able prospectively to reduce his estimate to three hours. The argument in the event was concluded comfortably within two hours and judgment has now been delivered later the same day extempore. The appeal has turned, quite predictably, on a handful of documents. The substantial records of argument before the judges below were not only not needed, they will not have been admissible.

Both parties as required have put in their draft bills of costs. The respondents, had they won, would have sought a sum a little short of £55,000; quite enough in all conscience at first blush for such a short case. The appellants, who have in the event won, seek costs in the sum slightly over £120,000. Even if one takes out of that sum the £50,000 claimed as leading counsel's fee, it is an astonishingly high bill. It includes 33+ hours for the attendances upon respondents, who in their bill have only accumulated 5.2 hours for attendances upon the appellants. That I am sure has an explanation but it will need to be given. Very large accumulations of hours are then shown as attendances upon others and attendances upon the appellants themselves. The client alone received 47.6 hours of attendance. 166 hours allocated to work on documents, 7.5 of those hours on the part of a senior partner. In fact more than that on the part of a senior partner, in a case in which the documents run to a little more than two arch binders. All of this, and indeed the attendance of two fully qualified solicitors in court, requires explanation. I think that the costs judge is the right forum in which that should be done.

I would simply remark in parting with this issue that Artpower, like any other litigant, is of course perfectly entitled if it wishes to come to court in a stretch limo with outriders, but it does not follow that if they win Bespoke have to pay the entire bill. That is something which will now be decided in the proper quarter.

Mr Arnold applies for permission to appeal to the House of Lords. Permission is refused.

MR GREEN: Can I clarify one thing, which I assume is implicit: if the parties agree costs, it is not stated that it has to go to court.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: You can always see the Taxing Master.

Thank you, Mr Green. Thank you both for a very economical submissions in this case. We are much obliged to you both.

[marben100] 02/11/2007 13:48

Hi momentos et al,

No sign of Cantor's today. Not much trading but still some hefty blocks of 25K being knocked out, so not convinced selling has finished. Once it has, we should be up up and away.

So, old fusebox adoping yet another pseudonym then? :0)

Cheers,

Mark

[momentos] 02/11/2007 12:08

So MANY contacts! Shame the comment always comes AFTER the fall. You are a clueless nobody and a buffoon.

Just a recent selection:

WAGN:

Evil kneivel is short on this beware. Its strong sell.

ECK:

EKT is a better bit slightly higher market cap bbut its makinmg far far more profits! Growth on turnover far far better.

This has a lot further to drop be warned. The sector its in is far more competitive.

LEAD:

Dump this croc.

AXS:

Drip drip drip day after day.

You lot wont be told. I predicted JQV down its collapsed. I predicted MTG down it collapsed today!!!

This co is well overvalued and the share price could drop as fast aas its risen

MTG:

Well said pictureframe. Lotrs of building stocks on a pe of nearer 5. The prospective pe is 9 but thats before a downgrade.

Expect a big collapse from here.

LNG:

Its a dog.

And the one exception (!)

EKT:

Panther increasing his stake and the buying goes on.Only one way this is going up from here.

[brindy] 02/11/2007 12:00

Nobody gives him any credibility whatsoever. The only contacts he has is when they attach the electric clips to him at the funny farm.

[ba5hir is back] 02/11/2007 11:50

AN RNS ON RESULTS DATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUT BY NOW AND YOU VERY WELL KNOW IT!

MY CONTACT SAYS THE CO HAVE NOT DECIDED....LATE RESULTS ARE A BAD SIGN!

[thepinkpanther] 02/11/2007 11:12

demand appears to be building, what about supply

think i am about ready to take a position

good luck.

[momentos] 02/11/2007 11:02

"I have good contact"?

Imaginary friends really shouldn't be listened to you know....

Why no RNS? Er... because:

1. Results likely to be 21 or 28 November
2. They RNS two weeks before results
3. Results issue complicated by FD changeover
4. Results issue complicated by first interims including Greenmark
5. Results issue complicated by EGM n 20 November.

Now go away and pollute another board please.

[brindy] 02/11/2007 11:00

Ba5hir is back

Utter garbage !! Why do you waste your time posting such nonsense ?

[ba5hir is back] 02/11/2007 10:57

No it aint twadle I have good contact. ASK YOURSELF WHY NO rns