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 | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promethean | LSE:PTH | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B08H5G38 | ORD 1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 3.125 | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 3.125 | GBX |
Promethean (PTH) Share Charts1 Year Promethean Chart |
|
1 Month Promethean Chart |
Intraday Promethean Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17/6/2014 | 09:53 | Promethean | 21 |
| 24/9/2004 | 22:26 | PPL Action Group - Biggest s/h group | 142 |
| 03/7/2003 | 15:34 | metage capital open letter to shareholders | 27 |
| 10/6/2003 | 09:35 | New ppl thread | 80 |
| 29/5/2003 | 09:49 | PPL Therapeutics - 50% discount to cash | - |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 08/6/2011 18:21 by praipus Weiss buyingTo track their other holdings see post 3 on the following thread |
Posted at 10/3/2004 22:16 by mjcrockett Dell, I agree with your comment from yesterday. Surely Metage (assuming it is they who have broken up this deal) must know roughly how much the shares would be worth if the company is liquidated. There can be no other reason for turning down 5.5p UNLESS they are confident that they can more for it. I would have thought that they must expect at least 15% more (i.e. 6p+)to allow for the risk and delay.Metage bought over half a million pounds worth of PPL shares at around 6p per share last June, at a time when it was fairly clear that the company would be sold off. Were they Optimistic? Stupid? OR..... Astute? Time will tell. MJ |
Posted at 09/3/2004 16:00 by crystalclear PPL THERAPEUTICS PLC ("PPL" OR THE "COMPANY")UPDATE ON PROPOSAL, MEMBERS' VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION ALMOST CERTAIN On 4March 2004, PPL announced that it was continuing discussions with a key shareholder in order to try to obtain its support for a proposal under which 5.5 pence per share in cash would be returned to shareholders by way of a scheme of arrangement and the Company would be de-listed and become wholly owned by the executive directors of the Company, Adam Christie and Lindsay Dunsmuir (the " Proposal"). The non-executive Directors of the Company (Chris Greig and Hugh Thompson) (the "Independent Committee"), together with their advisers, have reviewed a wide range of options over an extended period including indicative offers from third parties and a members' voluntary liquidation. The Independent Committee had concluded that, subject to sufficient support being received from major shareholders, the Proposal offered shareholders both more certainty and a higher financial value than would have been achieved under the other proposals received. Further it believes that the cash distribution which could be made to shareholders under the lengthy and uncertain process of a members' voluntary liquidation is unlikely to be materially higher, if it were to be higher, than the cash distribution offered under the Proposal. In orderfor the Proposal to be completed, it would require (amongst other things) the support of a majority in number of shareholders holding at least three quarters in value of the Ordinary Shares for which votes are cast at a shareholders' meeting. In light of the need for this level of shareholder support and before formally putting the Proposal to shareholders, the Independent Committee sought the backing of the Company's largest shareholders. Shareholders with an interest in approximately 30 per cent. in aggregate of the Ordinary Shares had verbally indicated their support for the Proposal. However, a key shareholder was undecided. The Independent Committee regrets to announce today that this key shareholder has declined to give its unconditional support for the Proposal. As a result the Independent Committee considers that it is reasonably likely that the Proposal would not receive sufficient support at the requisite shareholder meetings to enable it to proceed. If the Independent Committee had decided to continue with the Proposal without the support of this key shareholder and the Proposal did not become effective, it would have resulted in increased costs to the Company, which would have reduced the amount of funds available for distribution to shareholders under a members' voluntary liquidation, and would also have delayed the distribution of the funds. Therefore, the Independent Committee has decided not to proceed with the Proposal. The Independent Committee is not in discussions with any other party concerning the sale of the Company and it is therefore almost certain that the Group will be put into a members' voluntary liquidation. Further details will be announced to shareholders shortly. |
Posted at 05/2/2004 21:18 by hugepants Last results here ( show net tangible assets of 12M. PPL said assets have been written down to REALISEABLE values and, given the majority of assets are cash AND a 1.25M profit has been gained in 2 recent disposals then I think this figure should be viewed as prudent. Also the drugs pipeline (Fibrin1 , ReCAAT and BSSL) are not capitalised under assets. Worth noting that there are 'investments' of 625K under fixed assets. This is the 22.5% holding of Revivicor, the xenotransplantation disposal announced earlier this year. Im not sure how likely PPL are going to realise this amount on a forced disposal. However revivivor did announce a 1.9M US grant in July. See www.revivicor.com So if we assume we have 12M to start with what costs are going to come off of this? From the last annual report ( the directors were on approx 750K per annum. The contracts are described as 12 month rolling contracts and therefore Id assume that director pay-offs would be no more than 750K? And how much to pay-off 40 or so remaining employees? Lets say 1.75M to pay off directors and employees. How much for KPMG to wind-up the company? Lets say 750K which seems unbelieveably high for a job that could probably be done by a well-trained monkey. How difficult is it to organise the sale of a few assets? Cash burn on maintaing 40 or so employees? This is interesting because I reckon they've burned 1.35M (lets round up to 1.5M) since end of June 'maintaining' their IP. Now surely then it is logical to assume shareholders will receive at least as much as this when the drugs development program is sold? Otherwise why maintain something that has no value? Why indeed but this is PPL so lets assume this money is disappearing into a black hole. Lease liabilities? They do have a commitment of 180K for a lease that expires in greater than 5 years time. Guessing but say 500K to exit lease? So by an incredibly inaccurate series of wild guesses I reckon shareholders will be left with at least 12 - (0.75 - 1.75 - 1.5 - 0.5)= 7.5M or 6.25p per share. This assigns no value to the drugs programme and assumes that everything will be wound up in the next few months. |
Posted at 04/2/2004 14:44 by pawsnjaws Daniel????That I find interesting is RGT involved in Alz.. I don;t know anything about the share. Now... reason I came here. do you think if we all pool our shares we could own the company? |
Posted at 04/10/2003 11:51 by crystalclear are considering options to maximise return....Like the large shareholders form a consortium to bid for the company's assets? And then the less they pay the better, as they are only buying what they already own, and some of the cash would go to the small shareholders. Then when they relaunch things, they will own say 100% instead of say XX%. Maybe they don't like the idea of instututions always bailing out the small shareholders and this represents a chance to get even. Just cynically thinking outloud. Thoughts are based on mistreatment of small investors that I have seen, and is completely unfounded speculation re PTH. Treat it as humour and not as a prediction! |
Posted at 15/9/2003 14:14 by landsker well the market obviously thinks the break up value is worth no more than the current 5p share price, what a shambles of a company this has been, good riddance to the bosses who stepped down today, they are ok they have made a tidy amount out of the ppl venture, more than can be said for its investors |
Posted at 23/6/2003 13:45 by mjcrockett I would have thought "liquidation" was a nice word, when the assets involved - cash and property alone - are worth much more than the share price. I am amazed that the share price is not moving up. Am I missing something?MJ |
Posted at 11/6/2003 20:01 by nofixedabode 11th June 2003Open Letter to Shareholders of PPL Therapeutics PLC Dear Shareholder, As a significant shareholder of PPL Therapeutics PLC ("PPL"), Metage Funds Limited, whose investments are managed by Metage Capital Limited ("Metage"), has put forward a motion to appoint William McCall to the board as a non-executive director at the PPL Annual General Meeting to be held on the 20th June 2003. In our opinion William McCall is an ideal independent candidate with extensive experience as an active director of numerous small and medium sized companies, both listed and unlisted. Mr McCall's previous roles include directorships of Tilney & Co, Singer and Friedlander and the Scottish Enterprise backed Centre for Entrepreneurial Finance. He is currently chairman of a number of venture capital-backed businesses. PPL announced in September 2002 that it was initiating a process to replace the current non-executive directors. This process has been underway for over nine months and as yet, we have not seen any candidates put forward for shareholder approval. We had expected PPL to welcome a candidate of Mr McCall's experience. The Chief Executive Officer, the Finance Director and the senior non-executive director all met with Mr McCall and all gave positive feedback. As the company is under pressure from a number of disgruntled shareholders, one might have imagined that the current board would welcome the appointment of a new truly independent director. What better way of demonstrating to frustrated shareholders that the Company is being run in their interests, than appointing a shareholder-nominate Metage has strong views on how all companies should be run and these include the following: * Companies should be run to maximise shareholder value * Management should treat all shareholders fairly * Management should be accountable to shareholders * Management should be appropriately incentivised and rewarded commensurately for delivering shareholder value * The decisions of executive management should be subject to an independent and robust review process Metage spent considerable time working with the company's compensation advisers to develop a suitable incentive structure for management to be proposed to shareholders. This would have addressed all strategic options for PPL; namely a sale, merger, liquidation or the company's continuation in its current form through securing adequate funding from financial partnerships for its products. The current executive share options are hopelessly out-of-the money and only incentivise management to take excessive risk in order to have any chance of seeing a return from them. Given that the company is in the midst of several key negotiations to secure its future, we are convinced that this is the right time to: * appropriately incentivise management * appoint an independent director with prior experience of guiding companies through difficult transitional periods, namely Mr William McCall Sadly, the company ignored our efforts on incentivisation and rejected our suggestion to put Mr McCall on the board at this time. As you will have read in the AGM Notice, the management's objection to Mr McCall's nomination is allegedly procedural as in fact Mr McCall's name is still on the candidate list. Metage proposed Mr McCall because the Chief Executive and the Finance Director indicated that they could work with him. We had no intention of foisting a director onto a hostile board. Metage is concerned that executive management should be concentrating on the key Bayer negotiations. They have taken time out of their busy schedules to visit selected major shareholders to update them on the company's plans. This seems somewhat unnecessary given that all major shareholders were given a face to face meeting with executive management in early May at the time of the interim results announcement and we are unaware of any new significant developments to be discussed at this time. If such developments exist, Metage would like these to be put firmly in the public domain. As a result of these meetings certain shareholders are now concerned that the Chief Executive might resign if they were to support Metage's resolution. Nevertheless we still urge all shareholders to vote in favour of Resolution 11 to appoint Mr McCall at this time. Whilst the company has gone to excessive lengths to defeat this motion, the matter will only be decided at the AGM vote. Metage's motion has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting the incumbent management, it is simply about good corporate governance. An independent director with no axe to grind will only create a "divided board" (as the management appear to be suggesting) if there are matters which divide the interests of shareholders from those of management. The appointment of William McCall will ensure that all shareholders can be confident that their interests will be well represented. The executive management seems to have gone to excessive lengths to attack an effort to uphold an important principle of corporate governance. PPL's management is now under considerable pressure to deliver results by the end of June. If results are not forthcoming we will be calling for a shareholder vote on the company's future. If any directors resign at that point, the Chief Executive included, we will propose alternatives who are not afraid to operate in a transparent fashion in the best interests of shareholders and who may even be willing to back their decisions by owning a meaningful number of shares in the company that they manage. In such a situation we would ask William McCall once again to stand as an independent non-executive director. In the meanwhile we wish the management every success in concluding the delicate negotiations underway and look forward to reviewing a credible business plan by the end of June. We will also urge the company to disclose publicly any private information provided to selected shareholders. Yours truly, Daron Sheehan Director |
Posted at 06/12/2002 04:38 by paulypilot Hi,For anyone not subscribing to the Willowdrive Ltd free newsletter, here is the text of last night's announcement/press release - we are now the largest single shareholder block ! Hi, As always, this email is being simultaneously sent to all 395 subscribers of the Willowdrive Ltd (free) newsletter facility - the company set up in 2001 to campaign for unlocking shareholder value. (should you no longer wish to receive my emails, an unsubscribe link is provided at the bottom of every email, and I apologise for troubling you) We achieved a major milestone today with the PPL Shareholder Action Group at www.SaveDollyTheShee In the last 3 days, 22 new supporters have joined, meaning that the group now represents an unprecedented 117 private shareholders in PPL Therapeutics. Furthermore, 18 existing shareholders (including myself) have taken advantage of the lower share price to buy more shares. Peel Hunt have been selling at 5.25p. As such, our support has rocketed to controlling 13,612,638 PPL shares, or 11.1% of the total. This means supporters of the Action Group website have now overtaken ALL Institutional shareholders to become the largest single shareholding block, our main short term stated aim. The website has also proved highly successful, with over 4,400 hits, and a very lively Bulletin Board encouraging a full & frank debate as to the company's future. The recent share price fall has been caused by Institutional sellers, reinforcing our view that there is little (if any) real Institutional support for PPL. Certainly not enough to make a Rights Issue fund raising even remotely possible when the cash runs out in 2004. Supporters have taken advantage of this price fall to mop up more shares, bringing a resolution of our issues much closer. In tonight's Editorial on the site I also cover alarming comments from the company to Shares Magazine's small companies expert James Quinn, and the burning issue of the £7m+ write off which PPL must address in its next set of accounts relating to expenditure on its ill-conceived Manufacturing Agreement with Bayer. Finally, tonight's Editorial also urges supporters to prepare for an EGM showdown in the new year, by transferring all shares held in Nominee accounts to directly held certificated form, to be sure you can make your voice heard. In this way we are hopeful of requisitioning an EGM to make wide-reaching changes to the Board, and unlock shareholder value before the remaining cash has been frittered away. After a "fallow patch" things have very much hotted up with PPL. We are expecting a response from the company any day, which has now taken about a month for them to prepare - typical of the disdain reserved for small shareholders at most struggling companies. Now that we control the largest block of shares, I fully expect to be able to bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion in the not too distant future. Thankyou to everyone who is giving the Action Group such sterling support. Best wishes, Paul Scott Director Willowdrive Ltd. |
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
