The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Agreed - my only point was as in any loan arrangement they will have risk assessed.
i think epsilon do also hold a big chunk of equity here.
So you think that banks say oh well never mind if a client defaults? Or do you think they arrange adequate security to mitigate the risk? If it's the former then I shall stop paying my mortgage today as by your logic there will be no comeback. It's certainly an interesting view.
Also goodluck, you need to move on. Take a bath on this one and learn for next time. It's happened to us all at some point.
They didn't invest in DAN, they made a loan with the whole company as security. Tells you all you need to know really.
lol, so if epsilon did have any control over the spending, it would be in their interest to overspend in order to tip dan into default.
That's a false positive really because if you don't have a nomad you can't be on AIM.
No - they have a charge against the company. So if they default basically epsilon gets the lot.
i wonder if that was connected to Nomad resignation? dispute about the advisability, including share holder interests, about accepting such money under those terms? (or possibly, about timing for disclosure of it?) -- still, we will probably never really know. what's good for epsilon not necessarily for anyone else with money in here.
Not sure if I see them coming off AIM as a good thing we need to remember now epsilon have control over the compnay and will have first bite if things turn sour like seems to be happening. PI's wont in my opinion e er see any money from DAN
Unfortunately the story is true Dan has leveraged the company in its entirety against a loan and forgot to tell anybody about it until earlier this year what the document doesn't communicate is the level of the cash loan they are obviously still burning cash at an alarming rate. Crazy really how after all this time DAN have not communicate once with its investors there should be a law against this.
about the share puppets website, especially the tone of some (most?) of their articles. but for those who are interested, i see they have posted another comment on DAN today on their site (it's not a very complimentary one) particularly, they are highlighting that a document lodged with companies house recently seems to show that the company has given epsilon a charge over most/all DAN assets, in exchange for unspecified amounts of loans, suggesting DAN is running very low indeed on cash. at sharepuppets --> /views/18989/breaking-daniel-stewart-oh-dear-mr-terry-it-looks-like-the-cesspit-is-now-drowning-in-debt meanwhile, DAN watchers may also be mildly interested in the suspension of slater & gordon shares, as per: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/quindell-gives-slater-gordon-a-case-of-indigestion-a6894886.html (... perhaps this seems a bit tangential to DAN itself, but may be relevant insofar as DAN was involved in a number of QPP activities, so it remains possible that those looking into QPP's history are also eyeballing some aspects where DAN involved.)
i think he's gone out to buy a bigger calculator.
Cool. How much profit do you think u will make on DAN?
well, it's fraudulent if a company says says something in an RNS which it knows simply isn't true. if you choose to believe that DAN bb were secretly *not* making 'best efforts' to find a new nomad, that's up to you (... but it's hard to see why you would then trust the company about anything else that it has to say. after all, if a company lies in one RNS, what's to say it isn't lying on other occasions too?) ...for the avoidance of doubt, i am *not* suggesting myself that DAN bb were lying in their RNS when they said that they were trying but failing to find another nomad. -- i think they just genuinely failed.
although in such a case, presumably one would expect that the company would not claim that it was making best efforts to remain listed? - instead, it would explain that it was *not* seeking another nomad because etc etc?
I know in the case of Madagascar oil who are trying to refinance that their potential lenders may insist on certain conditions one of which is to delist before they commit to giving more funds
if you're right, which i very much doubt, then the company would not have been telling the truth in the RNS of 15th jan, particularly where they said: "Despite it's best efforts, the Company has so far been unable to secure such an appointment." since if they were deliberately not finding a new one as you suggest, they would hardly have been using 'best efforts', were they? (... perhaps depends partly on whether or not you think the BoD of DAN likely to be truthful in RNS statements?)
(just a shame that the company isn't prepared to back it up with publication of audited accounts, on the record statements attributed to named BoD members, about cash, plans, contracts etc. along with a nice, clearly transparent matched bargain system where people can receive proper feedback, through actual traded prices, about what their shares are really worth.)
and to add to your confidence and happiness, an anonymous poster on this bulletin board, indigo, has told you that they have been in contact with an unnamed source at DAN, who has told them that according to DAN it's all going to be fine, just fine. (& if DAN say DAN is fine, then DAN is fine, right? (?))
lol, indeed he is fairly careful not to lose too much of his own money, but perhaps not so careful with others'.
i have already said why i'm here. i find it interesting and entertaining to watch some of the things mr rt gets up to, and some of the methods used. i have never had any financial stake, not long nor short, in dan, nor will i have. (your choice of course if you choose to believe indigopot's tales about evil shorters, who knows, there be some somewhere, but i am not of 'em.) are you really, genuinely, seriously claiming to be long DAN? my hat off to you for sheer uncomprehending bravery if you are.
lol, bizarrely inconsistent -- i find it very hard to believe that you do actually hold any shares here, but it's also hard to understand what the point is of your posting here & imtk. i guess everyone needs a hobby.
re 21:05, which seems to present a bizarrely rosy view of DAN's situation, an alternative interpretation (which i do not present as fact, lol) is that indigopot is being used, wittingly or not, to convey spin being put out by RT &/or his associates, to try to sustain a positive picture of his/their investments and prospects which does not seem to fit very well with this company still failing to produce its accounts, failing to complete the placing it kept talking about, falling out with another Nomad, getting delisted, and failing to keep shareholders in touch with its plans through transparent and public statements. indigopot posts an upbeat picture, but with little/no evidence in support.
"It would also appear that various shorters, desperate to close out short positions, are spreading negative rumours (in the same way as they spread rumours about Quindell going to zero before it rocketed to 130p) and suggesting ridiculously low prices in order to scare private investors." where is the evidence to back up the claim above?