Motif Bio Share Discussion Threads

[small crow] 23/12/2022 10:37

Thanks sk2. Some folks were 99% certain this would succeed. Salutary lesson eh?

[sweet karolina2] 23/12/2022 10:25

It took them a while, but it is finally here:



Compulsory strike off and dissolution. Shareholders can crystallise their losses at 0p and offset against CGT.

[sweet karolina2] 11/11/2022 09:48

The good news is that next week Companies House should strike off the company, which means you can crystallise your losses at 0p and offset them against CGT this tax year or carry them forward to offset in future years.

[small crow] 03/11/2021 10:19

Bivictrix is perking up though.

[tnt99] 03/9/2021 15:16

The parrot is dead It's not dead it's just sleepingLol

[chuffer2] 23/8/2021 17:11

Bvx doing well l see.
Just like the sham shareholders group

[hedgehog 100] 11/8/2021 17:08

Also note, Chuffer, that Government Finance Acts in the last decade or so have introduced 'loss-buying' rules intended to counter companies accessing unused corporation tax losses from unconnected parties.

With such anti-avoidance rules, HMRC takes into account all relevant factors in seeking to establish the purpose of the arrangements.

Why don't you think that a complete change of directors could be such a relevant factor, in flagging up the unconnected nature of an acquired company?

[smcl] 11/8/2021 16:17

Get stuffed Chuffer2- losing your sense of perspective! Investment is gone......

[hedgehog 100] 11/8/2021 16:17

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/theoretically save in tax.

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.

[scottdavid70] 11/8/2021 16:14

For anyone defending Gold and Lumsden over the RTO explain these two things:

If the deal was so good and fai for shareholders why didnt they organise a presentation for us to sell the huge advantages it held for us and explain why they were receiving warrants at a 50% better value deal than the very shareholders they got into this sit by failing to get Iclaprim approved, partnered in the 1st place to take some of the risk which Lumsden promised all the way back 2015 and justify why they paid themselves so much including a bonus for Lumsden if the RTO went ahead?

If the deal was so good for shareholders why not explain it? We had total radio silence on the biggest moment of the companies existence which also goes against good Corporate governance.

Also why did Walbrook not once promote the RTO publicly through any medium be it social media or otherwise if the deal was so good after the initial document came out?

For a deal that is supposedly in the shareholders best interests these are strange occurrences (almost like they wanted to keep it on the low down it was even happening given the extent of warrants and shares they were personally getting) wouldn’t you say and hard to understand how they can remain as Director’s of any company with that type of communication with their shareholders over something so significant

[smcl] 11/8/2021 15:36

Bellend is right!

[smcl] 11/8/2021 15:25

Who would take ant notice of your posts - MINI SD70!!

[chuffer2] 11/8/2021 15:17

I wouldn't take any notice of Hedgehogs posts.
He still think you need the same bod members to realise tax losses.
Lol

[scottdavid70] 11/8/2021 14:04

No I’m not recognising that BiVictrix shouldnt have paid much for Motif Bio listing. I am recognising that that’s all they were paying for.

They saved noting trying to do the RTO as the fee for the extra £2.5 is the difference for the brokers. So a shocking deal for them actually after 6 months of paying advisors etc.

Noting for Iclaprim, nothing for deferred tax losses for Motif Bio shareholders.

Why give so much of your company to 4 Director’s when there are so many other easier clean cash shells out there?

6 months for a RTO is extremely long as you know if it’s just for a listing so why did it take so long?

The main question is though the Director’s shares they were given and at the price 50% less than shareholders. You can try to argue it but it simply comes down to that isn’t and wasn’t in our best interests.

Everything else is just noise

The only wonders here are the brokers and would have been the Motif Bio Director’s - even BiVictrix would have been worse off but the biggest losers were Motif Bio shareholders

[hedgehog 100] 11/8/2021 13:12

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.

[scottdavid70] 11/8/2021 12:38

Interesting that when you look at the cost of the fundraise and admission for the Motif Bio RTO with BiVictrix it was £1,100,000 and the cost for BiVictrix to do the same on their own was £830,000?

Thought the purpose of a RTO was it was cheaper and faster?

They seem to have been just fine on their own and saved themselves money.

Guess it’s more expensive to have to handout all those warrants and options to Director’s because the deal itself means that Motif Bio shareholders were offered nothing for Iclaprim, deferred tax of 18 million when you look at today’s admission for BiVictrix.

Remember the Director’s warrants were at 20p and shareholders at 30p with only 6 months to exercise them. So shareholders still in the red today.

[chuffer2] 11/8/2021 12:10

Lol
It would have to go up 3,700% for most to b/e

[hedgehog 100] 11/8/2021 10:50

No one else had started a BVX thread, so I have 'done the honours':

"BiVictriX Therapeutics: Emerging Biotechnology Company"

[smcl] 11/8/2021 09:05

Chuffer2- we know we know!!

[w t tutte] 11/8/2021 08:58

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.

[w t tutte] 11/8/2021 08:36

Just to rub salt in to the wound of you geniuses

Bivictrix has opened up 22.5% .... and going higher