Parkmead Share Discussion Threads

[mallorca 9] 20/9/2019 15:36

Chutes / 11 percent

half gone.

[monte1] 20/9/2019 15:15

Get a grip Cl€m with yer double posting ffs

[11_percent] 20/9/2019 15:14

malli9,

Are you totally out yet???????

[11_percent] 20/9/2019 15:13

tried that....it didn't work...

[monte1] 20/9/2019 15:03

Neither can I.

It may be time to consider Botox.

[11_percent] 20/9/2019 15:00

....just wont stay under 40....

[anley] 20/9/2019 14:35

Can you prove I do not hold?

[chutes01] 20/9/2019 14:25

mally, is the market taking your shares yet

[robs12] 20/9/2019 14:21

What ARE you lot on about...pages and pages of drivel....

[monte1] 20/9/2019 14:15

......... and a very fanciful one at that.

[anley] 20/9/2019 14:12

I have no idea how many shareholders post and read this BB but with some effort one may be able to mobilise enough names and shares to call an EGM to have Mr Cross and maybe others to be thrown off the board.

Just a thought.............

[11_percent] 20/9/2019 12:46

Still being supported at 40p.

[francoismyname] 20/9/2019 12:45

Coup de grace !!!!

[cyan] 20/9/2019 11:19

Was PARKMEAD's PITREADIE Farm Ltd acquisition entirely focussed on “potentialR21; renwable opportunities and PARKMEAD shareholders BEST interests?

Ask yourself this;

Why didn’t Parkmead DIRECTLY loan Pitreadie Farm Ltd £2.9 million ?

With that capital Pitreadie Farm Ltd could then have gone and acquired TIPPERTY Farm.

In any later complete takeover of PITREADIE Farm Ltd Mrs L CROSS would have received far fewer shares than she ultimately did and PARKMEAD shareholders would have suffered less dilution.

Now, think CONCERT PARTY.

PMG provided that £2.9million “credit facility”(now loan) to EMAL; That allowed EMAL to “repay” £2,865,272 to Mr & Mrs CROSS.

That made it possible for L CROSS to additionally LOAN £2,585,156 to Pitreadie Farm Ltd. Increasing her total LOANS number to £4.3 million as stated in Parkmead’s RNS.

When Parkmead ultimately takes over PITREADIE Farm Ltd ; instead of having to pay L CROSS in SHARES for circa £1.7 million in LOANS; they instead had to Pay her in shares for £4.3 million in LOANS.

The whole series of deals was skewed to the advantage of The CONCERT PARTY and to the grave disadvantage of other shareholders who were unnecessarily diluted.

The CONCERT PARTY gets far more shares and, guess what; YOUR company cash was used to help them do it.

[francoismyname] 20/9/2019 10:38

Well put Cyan

Something smells fishy here and it’s not the salmon from cross’s fishing lake at his castle.

But the way it’s Toms wheelbarrow day today. Another weekly £10k collected from the company...

Makes you sick doesn’t it .

[cyan] 20/9/2019 10:33

"Board decisions can only be justified by the best interests of the company, not on the basis of what works best for anyone else, such as particular executives, shareholders or other business entities."


With that in mind lets review the PITREADIE Farm Ltd Acquisition

Lets cut this all down to the barest bones.

Here are just three really critical numbers in this sorry tale;

The £2.9m PMG LOANS EMAL

The £2,865,272 EMAL repays EMAL directors ;Mr T CROSS & Mrs L CROSS

The £2,585,156 Mrs L CROSS LOANS Pitreadie Farm Ltd


And here are just three key questions

Who approached PMG for the loan ?

What was the declared purpose for the loan?

What "benefits" has PMG received from the "exclusive arrangement " that justifies extending the loan for another TWO years?

It’s quite evident, imo, that there has been a serious failure of corporate governance.
The related party transaction with ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES Ltd (EMAL) was kept hidden from public scrutiny for months in breach of AIM rule 13. Who is taking responsibility for this?

The subsequent related party transaction ; the PMG acquisition of PITREADIE Farm Ltd raises similar questions;

Who pointed Parkmead towards Pitreadie Farm ltd?

Who determined that Pitreadie Farm ltd was an acquisition in the best interest of PARKMEAD Group SHAREHOLDERS?

Were the decision makers FULLY conversant with the movements of funds out of EMAL and into Pitreadie Farm Ltd and the related parties personal investments.?

I do not believe directors have acted in the best interests of the SHAREHOLDERS .
As a result i believe that an independent investigation should be launched into the decision making and ALL other circumstances surrounding the TWO related party transactions;
The enquiry should not be limited or restricted in scope but should be expected to determine whether any director was in breach of their duties.

[mallorca 9] 20/9/2019 08:40

Finding it difficult to get rid of these in any qty.