Mereo Biopharma Share Discussion Threads

[dramatis] 21/11/2006 11:45

okay. amended (thank the lord)
let's move on.

[cr4zyness] 21/11/2006 11:44

RNS says 1,400,000 shares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a f##ing blunder

[momentos] 21/11/2006 11:18

DRH, that is a bit of a philosophical question.

Depends I suppose on 7,000,000 whats?

The answer is probably 42 (hours).

[tuftymatt] 21/11/2006 11:17

Dean,

Maybe when JH left he took the company's only calculator with him.....LOL

[pingi] 21/11/2006 11:12

momentos

Thanks for the AR link... missed the drop down box to select reports when I looked.

The AR answers some of my questions and confirms my next step.

[deanroberthunt] 21/11/2006 11:06

how long does it take to divide 7000000 by 5?

[tuftymatt] 21/11/2006 10:47

Paddyboy7,

If you feel like that then take YOUR money and run. I am glad to see you have a profit and to be honest feel that with the mistakes this company makes they do not deserve shareholders as good as they have got.

WBJ, Did you reduce your exposure or are you still fully invested.

[paddyboy7] 21/11/2006 10:41

How is it possible for a company to screw up their communications so badly, so consistently? Can't MM learn from past mistakes? Does he give a damn about shareholders apart from himself? I am just about at my wits end with this one after holding for years. Yes I am making a nice profit, yes I think they could and should go further, but at the end of the day, I just do not have the trust in MM and his management.

[tuftymatt] 21/11/2006 09:10

Sounds like clause 3 owed x £200k and b wanted some sketches done at his party to me..........lol

[momentos] 21/11/2006 09:06

Case Report on Boateng Case (Solr Journal 11 Nov):

Artpower Ltd v Bespoke Couture Ltd
10 November 2006

The judge had erred in his interpretation of a termination clause in an agreement and in holding that the agreement was automatically terminated by a party's breach as the party that had not breached the agreement had to take positive steps to bring the agreement to an end.

The appellants (X) appealed against the court's determination as to the meaning of a termination clause in a licence agreement. The respondent (B) had entered into an agreement with X that provided for X to produce a range of menswear based on sketches by B and using B's trade marks. Clause 9.3 of the agreement provided for either party to terminate the agreement with immediate effect if the other party had committed a material breach that had not been remedied within 30 days of receipt by that party of a written notice identifying the breach and requiring its remedy. In other proceedings between the parties, X had given cross-undertakings in damages and had been ordered to pay £200,000 forthwith to B. X failed to pay the sums due. B sent a letter informing X, that as it had not complied with the agreement, it was terminated forthwith. X contended that B had not given the necessary notice to terminate the agreement. The court was required to determine, inter alia, the meaning of clause 9.3, and held that the agreement had been terminated by B.

HELD: Appeal allowed

The judge had been wrong in his interpretation of clause 9.3. Clause 9.3 conferred the right on a party to terminate in circumstances described, but did not require that a party was bound to take that step. The party not in breach of the agreement had to take positive steps to bring the agreement to an end. On the evidence, B had not communicated to X that it was terminating the agreement under clause 9.3

[tuftymatt] 21/11/2006 08:58

Well it looks like the news is not going to turn out as bad as some thought but the fact that the company has damaged it's investor relations yet again will not help it in going forward.

Once bitten twice.............. and all that.

[lex1000] 21/11/2006 08:44

wbj,personal choice not to buy back.No intention raining on everyone elses parade.Yes still believe MPH are under valued at these levels.Uptrend intact.Good luck.regards.lex.

[momentos] 21/11/2006 08:44

Pingi, I am an investor, not the company! So I cant answer for them, except where my research has discovered stuff.

Yes I have questions unanswered too, like the forward orders. Annual Report (pdf):



Re: Payment for Moda, I am not sure where you see a problem. It is normal commercial business. The purchase price was dependent on certain things eg turnover. Marchpole are trying to reduce the price, so worst case is that they pay the full price indicated, all round better that they don't! The transaction is complete now if that is your worry, the argument is only on financials.

Wbj - did the FD say the correction RNS would be issued "imminently" or "in the very near future"?

[momentos] 21/11/2006 08:40

Best hurry, ex dividend next Wednesday!

[pingi] 21/11/2006 08:40

momentos - 20 Nov'06 - 18:09 - 2048 of 2077
Pingi, it is a cash purchase (see original RNS). Existing resources obviously includes loan facilities, which probably by March 2006 included the dollar loan (or else please explain its purpose / appearance).

Don't have AR so can't comment on $loan.
If you just put aside for one moment how they financed the purchase and ask yourself why hasn't $4.5m or anything near that figure gone through the cashflow statement in the interim period? There is a problem.


momentos - 20 Nov'06 - 18:09 - 2048 of 2077
Personally as a holder I am glad nobody has asked where the forward order figures we normally get at interims have gone to... (oops!).

You were being spared that awkward question.

[wbjunior] 21/11/2006 08:36

Thanks cr4zyness will look forward to the review, should be a good one hopefully. Off now bye till 3.............wbj

[cr4zyness] 21/11/2006 08:27

Lets not forget that MPH are being covered in IC on Friday, I have acces to online so will post it on Friday first thing

[wbjunior] 21/11/2006 08:25

Pingi,

The RNS was a blocklisting error on the quantity, I'm as annoyed about it as you sound but one has to move on , good luck only 23.5p old money if your quick.....................wbj

[wbjunior] 21/11/2006 08:21

Lex come back on board they are very cheap as you know, soon make up a few pence from yesterday........wbj

[pingi] 21/11/2006 08:20

Don't believe this RNS error chat.

They got the less significant *new* nominal value of 5p correct... why would they get the *more* significant quantity wrong?

"7,000,000 ordinary shares of 5p each"

[lex1000] 21/11/2006 08:19

Haven't bought back.Here's some early trades on PLUS.Back to as MPH was 119p-122p-as yet no amended RNS?

21/11/2006 08:02:08 117.93 7,500 O 8,844.75
21/11/2006 08:01:08 117.93 750 O 884.47

[wbjunior] 21/11/2006 08:18

Ok a bounce, taking their time with the sorry we make a mistake RNS though imo.............wbj