We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motif Bio Plc | MTFB | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 11/8/2021 16:17 by hedgehog 100 Chuffer,As I've mentioned previously I'm a retail investor who is interested in shares and RTOs. Which is why I've been running the following thread on ADVFN for over seven years: "THE REVERSE TAKEOVERS & SHELLS THREAD Hedgehog 100 11 Mar '14 - 21:09" I've seen numerous RTOs into shells over the years, and the tax losses never seem to be given any significant value relative to what they could potentially/theoreti Given me one single example of biotech losses in a shell like MTFB that were sold for the sort of sum that you and Scott seem to think they're worth. |
Posted at 11/8/2021 13:12 by hedgehog 100 Scott,As you have observed, BVX has raised £2.5M. less in the IPO than it would have in the RTO, so obviously it's paying less as the broker takes a percentage of the funds raised for their work. Also, a lot of the preparations done for the RTO, e.g. prospectus preparation, and finding investors, would have just been carried forward for the IPO, significantly saving time. That said, you seem to now be partly recognising that BVX shouldn't have paid much for MTFB's listing. Whereas for months, you've been complaining that it should have been paying far more for MTFB's listing, and that MTFB's directors were somehow failing in their duties for massively underpricing it. The fact is, the shell value of MTFB was only about what BVX agreed to pay for it, and the price was fair. |
Posted at 11/8/2021 08:58 by w t tutte Now up 37.5% @ 27.50p ..... your warrants would be starting to perk up about here, if you had them. But at least you have Iclaprim, oh that's right you actually don't have it. In the long and sordid history of AIM I am not sure if there has ever been a group of more dunderheaded investors than those who, by choice, have been left holding the bag on MTFB. |
Posted at 21/7/2021 21:29 by hedgehog 100 No Scott, I'm just a retail investor who is interested in shares and RTOs.Which is why I've been running the following thread on ADVFN for over seven years: "THE REVERSE TAKEOVERS & SHELLS THREAD Hedgehog 100 11 Mar '14 - 21:09" I was following MTFB, without posting, just like I follow a lot of shells, for the RTO potential. BiVictriX Therapeutics looked like it would have been a very good RTO - my main worry was that it would resume trading at about double the RTO price. So I was surprised and disappointed that it was voted down. But if I had been a MTFB shareholder, I don't think that I would have just assumed that it was a done deal, bearing the mind the mass bulletin board opposition to it. It looks like some MTFB shareholders voted "no" without realising the full consequences of what a no vote would mean: i.e. fairly immediate delisting, with likely administration to follow in the not too distant future. And some of those who did perhaps realise that, such as yourself, mistakenly thought that you could 'safely' make a protest vote against it. But the MTFB board have to share responsibility for this no vote, by not bothering to properly explain and sell the deal, and for not all stepping down from the board to have a completely new BOD, which is normally the case with RTOs. That said, I don't see that there is any basis for any claim or action against them. They were not the ones ramping MTFB to ludicrous level in the spring of last year, when it rose about 25-fold within weeks. |
Posted at 21/7/2021 20:51 by hedgehog 100 Scott,I think you're veering into the realms of conspiracy theory. Whatever Iclaprim was valued at in the past, and has had spent on it, and may be valued at in the future, is largely irrelevant to its value now. It will now be viewed as a rejected drug with toxicity concerns that needs tens of millions of dollars spent on it, in a process taking several years and with an uncertain outcome. That's why there been no buyer after about a year and a half. And anyone interested will know that they should be able to pick it up from administration for next to nothing. I don't think it would really make much difference who's marketing it. As regards the tax losses. Not sure of the US rules, but in Britain the rules for quite a while have been tightened up. My understanding is that tax losses can only be 'reused' if the existing board is the same, and the new business is the same type of business as the previous business. And for small biotechs, profits are usually uncertain, and some way off if achieved at all. Which means that any value from the tax losses, even if allowed, is uncertain and some way off, so would have to be discounted massively. This is why generally little or no value seems to be attributed to a shell's tax losses for a RTO. Similarly, 'failed technology' such as a failed drug seems to sell for relatively negligible value compared to the amounts invested into it. MTFB's main value was its listing which has now been lost. In contrast MTFB's liabilities will have mounted up considerably. Accrued deferred payments to directors, and aborted RTO costs, with no money now coming in from the RTO placing. No listing means that there is little or no attraction for a RTO candidate, and in any case a RTO requires a lot of time and money to arrange. In summary, administration looks like the overwhelmingly likely outcome here, and always did if the RTO was voted down. There was never any chance of an alternative deal, not least because AIM time limits required an immediate delisting after the RTO was aborted. Under AIM rules, there are relatively short time limits to arrange a RTO. MTFB had already been granted a four and a half month extension, probably because of COVID-19. |
Posted at 16/6/2021 21:21 by hedgehog 100 Tnt99,No listing means that there is little or no attraction for a RTO candidate, and in any case a RTO requires a lot of time and money to arrange. MTFB's main value was its listing which has now been lost. In contrast MTFB's liabilities will have mounted up considerably. Accrued deferred payments to directors, and aborted RTO costs, with no money now coming in from the RTO placing. In summary, administration looks like the overwhelmingly likely outcome here, and always did if the RTO was voted down. There was never any chance of an alternative deal, not least because AIM time limits required an immediate delisting after the RTO was aborted. Under AIM rules, there are relatively short time limits to arrange a RTO. MTFB had already been granted a four and a half month extension, probably because of COVID-19. |
Posted at 15/6/2021 09:00 by blast from the past Well said. MTFB shareholders now have exactly 100% of nothing. There will be no new offer because the only asset - the AIM Listing - has now gone.It will be interesting to see what happens to BVX 😀 |
Posted at 09/6/2021 10:11 by w t tutte Go on then furry and chuffer, how many shares do you have. Out of the @900 million +(include the warrants) that are entitled to vote I bet it does not even add up to a hill of beans. Wishing you ATB but it is clear that this is probably your first rodeo, it is probably time to man up and move on, accept the MTFB directors may have gotten the better of you, lesson learned. |
Posted at 08/6/2021 08:42 by w t tutte Yes, its awful and it should not change how you feel, but MTFB was always at the spivy end of what is a spivy market. I am not trying to invalidate what you are saying or feeling but to my view you are mixing up the history of how we go here with what is the best shareholders today.We are where we are, however we got here. What is best for shareholders given this is where we are, is for the RTO to proceed. As you will see next week most shareholders will not be principled like you, they will salvage a little something and move on. |
Posted at 08/6/2021 08:14 by w t tutte SD70, I am not defending the board, look back, I have said the only way to hurt them is to sue them for negligence, it is the only way. In every other scenario they win. In my view MTFB management and board have been a complete shower at every turn and if they have been negligent or even fraudulent they should be held accountable.But the stark truth is we are where we are, there is no value left in MTFB and there is no time to find alternatives before the liquidators are called in. You say you have 11.5 million shares ? At the RTO price that is worth GBP 10,555, there is clearly upside to that price and with the warrants it is not inconceivable within 18 months you could have many multiples of that amount. The amount you are prepared to sacrifice to make a point seems high. If the RTO were to be voted down they win and you get nothing, the RTO goes through they win and you get something. I prefer the later myself, anyway it is all semantic as it will go through of that I am certain. On a slightly different note, if you read the proxy form it says they will broadcast the GM and that they will take questions but that these must be submitted by email no later than tomorrow. That might be route for you to get some of the answers you are looking for. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
