Salvarx Share Discussion Threads

[brave dave] 09/7/2019 19:26

Mellon and Bailey only take a token £10k per year. And there is only one other director. They have stated the costs are next to nothing to run as it’s only a holding company all they have is a bunch of portage shares. Currently worth just over 12p to each salvarx share. As far as winding the company up. It’s not as though it’s a large complicated business. It could be wound up in 10 minutes for around £500 to delist and log it at company house. The holding shares could be sold in no time at all. But why would they do that ??? Even an Aim listing is worth around £500k as that is the current cost for a company to list on aim and that’s with several months wait . To any company that is going to list. I see it as coming back with a reverse takeover with one of Mellon’s many interests. He has majority share holdings in over 20 unlisted companies. A couple of these he has quoted as saying will list this year.

[dexdringle] 09/7/2019 13:30

...but they haven't done anything. Not a sausage. There is no evidence whatsoever of them having tried to do anything. It is most odd.

I still have my PORT too but the way things are going with my portfolio I expect those to halve any day soon...

[bscuit] 09/7/2019 12:20

They clearly were trying to add value by doing a reverse, but that had risks.I still hold my PORT.

[dexdringle] 09/7/2019 10:32

so it is a 'cash shell' with no cash ?

Wouldn't it have been better to wind it up in January and save six months costs ? I am struggling to see how waiting six months has been in any way to the advantage of the shareholders (owners)…̷0;.

Id like to see where the money has gone (and is going re redundancy payments etc).

You were right. There was zero point holding these. I should have sold. Had they said "we are keeping sufficient Portage shares back to cover winding up costs" then obviously I would have. But they didn't say that.

[bscuit] 09/7/2019 09:01

Directors' redundancy and loss of LTIP etc

[dexdringle] 09/7/2019 08:37

Really ? It doesn't cost that much to wind up a company. It isn't as though there are administrators etc as with companies that have gone into liquidation due to failure.

Doesn't SALV still own around 60M Portage shares with a value of around £4M (which is 10p worth per SALV share)??

This is making me think that they kept the rump of the Portage shares purely as a float to keep enough back to keep the salary band wagon rolling for a few more months otherwise what was the point ? I hope I'm wrong but this simply isn't making sense......

[bscuit] 08/7/2019 21:17

Liquidation costs will haves significant effect

[dexdringle] 08/7/2019 20:36

For "holders" read "owners"....

Assume they will liquidate assets and distribute to shareholders. All a bit pointless keeping some of the Portage shares unless I'm missing something?

[bscuit] 08/7/2019 20:21

But there is a risk of delisting
G which means holders are denied realising their investment except when the company does a deal. I sold months ago.

[fig1] 08/7/2019 20:07

... and maybe a lot more if Portage lists on NASDAQ/NYSE and newsflow is positive.

[dexdringle] 08/7/2019 19:48

.....but the company has at least 10p per shares worth of invested Portage shares doesn't it ?

[cottoner] 08/7/2019 18:56

From results RNS on 28/6.

The disposal and the demerger resulted in the divestment of substantially all of the Company's existing business, assets and investments. As such, the Company is now classified as an AIM Rule 15 cash shell and is required to make an acquisition or acquisitions which constitute a reverse takeover under AIM Rule 14 (or seek re-admission as an investing company (as defined under the AIM Rules)) on or before the date falling six months from completion of the disposal and the demerger (namely 9 July 2019). Failing which, the Ordinary Shares will be suspended from trading on AIM pursuant to AIM Rule 40. Admission to trading on AIM will be cancelled six months from the date of suspension should the reason for the suspension not have been rectified.

[the stigologist] 26/6/2019 08:07

Intensity link up with Merck

[fig1] 06/5/2019 13:35

https://twitter.com/jrobinson_ccc/status/1125371058721189888?s=19

[bscuit] 03/5/2019 20:41

Anyone else got a similar problem?

Originally I retained my rump SALV shares and in retrospect should have sold at 20p, but sold prior to the end of the tax year at 9p. Because they were subscribed shares. I could in theory set any loss against Income Tax using Subscribed Share Income Tax Loss Relief, but I have retained myPortage shares. In the context of completion of my tax return, my accountant advises that he requires the split in value of my original holding between SALV and Portage immediately following the de-merger.

I contacted share price Angel – successors to Northland, who advised that immediately following approval of the De-merger, the SALV price was 75.5p and that Portage was trading atCAN$0.115, meaning that each SALV share pre-demerger was worth CAN$2.07 plus the rump value. The information from share price Angel is in my view flawed as the 75.5p included the about to be de-merged value in Portage.

There should be a de-merger value on both shares. I that my accountant will not accept that the value of my SALV shares is showing a significant loss on original subscription price when I have an asset which I have retained.

Any thoughts? In my opinion that has been a failure by SALV and its advisers to inform shareholders of the split in value in a fractional as opposed to pounds and p pennies in order for the calculation of the loss on the original holding – if any – or any fractional gain.

[dexdringle] 28/3/2019 10:43

Its all gone a bit quiet but I assume all the old hands are still holding these and the Portage shares ?

Where do we think things are going from here (both SALV and Portage) ?

EDIT the SALV website says:

"Following the Disposal and the Demerger, the Company ceased to own, control or conduct all, or substantially all, of its existing trading business activities or assets. It was therefore classified as an AIM Rule 15 cash shell and as such is required to make an acquisition or acquisitions which constitutes a reverse takeover under AIM Rule 14 (or seek re-admission as an investing company (as defined under the AIM Rules)) on or before the date falling six months from completion of the Disposal and the Demerger (namely by 9 July 2019), failing which the Company's Ordinary Shares would then be suspended from trading on AIM pursuant to AIM Rule 40. Admission to trading on AIM would be cancelled six months from the date of suspension should the reason for the suspension not have been rectified.

The Company’s shareholding in Portage (which amounted to 56,657,531 shares immediately following the Disposal and the Demerger) may increase by up to 40,692,697 shares to the extent that certain options remain unexercised by 5.00 p.m. on 8 January 2020"

.....so something needs to happen with SALV (it needs to become a trading entity again and not just a holding company for the Portage rump shares - around £5M worth) by 9th July 2019 otherwise it will be suspended from AIM. But it may also receive additional Portage shares in January 2020 (which would potentially be six months after AIM suspension). The SALV Portage rump shares are currently worth around 14p a share.

Can we expect some action then before 19th July ?

[bscuit] 07/3/2019 00:04

Well at 1900 uk today Portage was trading up at .12, which was price on completion. If no reverse happens I'don't like to see a distribution.

[dexdringle] 06/3/2019 20:42

Given that the rump of the Portage shares are the only SALV asset now, should we not be expecting ths SALV share price to move broadly in line with the Portage share price ?

[bscuit] 15/2/2019 17:32

and your point is...........?

I have more than doubled my original stake between taking the stake off the table., the rump holding and the Portage shares

[letmepass] 15/2/2019 14:34

What a dog.. Woof woof

[bscuit] 01/2/2019 12:56

For those who kept Portage shares there is another problem. Mine are in nominee with Jarvis through Turner Pope , and I received the following advice-
"THE PORTAGE BIOTECH WILL NEED TO TRANSFERRED TO OUR OVERSEAS CUSTODIAN TO TRADE
FOR WHICH THE STANDARD CANADIAN SETTLEMENT FEES WILL APPLY.

HOLDERS WISHING TO RETAIN THE SHARES WILL NEED TO ACCEPT THE CUSTODIAN FEES BY 14TH FEB 19

WHERE NO RETAIN ELECTION IS RECEIVED WE WILL SELL THE SHARES ON SETTLEMENT AND CREDIT THE PROCEEDS (LESS COSTS)" TO THE ACCOUNT."

In order to make a meaningful decision, I queried these costs and Turner Pope could only advise that Jarvis were looking to charge £200 plus VAT for the entire holding that they had – i.e. spread across a number of holders – but were not in a position to advise additional costs nor what CANADIAN SETTLEMENT costs might be. I told them to go back to Jarvis and get accurate information.

[dexdringle] 01/2/2019 11:11

...and Portage didn't anticipate this 'form submission through a brokerage' requirement ?

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence....

[napoleon 14th] 29/1/2019 10:16

WOOF WOOF!