Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video 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.
Phil, protocols required the Lender to issue a Warning Notice at least 28 days before action to recover the debt could be demanded.
As mentioned any Legal action requires factual evidence, a charge of incompetence will not stand up for a Claim to succeed.
Evidence to consider is failure to inform Shareholders and the Market of matters that would materialy affect the Share price, i.e was the issuance of a Warning Notice, published? This in itself will be evidence to prove deceit.
I have a gut feeling our Friends over the pond are more involved than we know.
A poster here , CRL has undertaken to organise some sort of group action and I am intouch with him via email. He seems tenacious and IMV worth contacting if any other investor also feels the need to get involved collectively pooling thoughts etc.
IMV , investors are unlikely to suceed in any action where the evidence amounts to incompetence only. What is ultimately needed is a bundle of evidence of hard facts establishing wrong doing or deceit or witholding of market sensitive info and because I have not followed this closely I do not know whether that exists - so dig around guys. The strongest point I have read thus far is the disparity between the sec filings and UK rns statements but there may be other stuff.
A general statement like he knew all along what OF were doing goes nowhere without proof.
Interested to hear others views and good luck all.
Thank you all for contributing with your views and action points since last Friday.
I will be following up this week with advisors to discuss my options. This company had plenty of options to ensure it never gets to this point.
One thing that I find incredible is that, according to 4D's RNS, OF meeting happened on 23rd and they went into administration on 24th. What kind of a contract allows the lender to close down business in 24 hours? Surely if company was put on notice previously- wouldn't that had to have been RNSd? Am I missing something?
How have company directors allowed the company to be at a mercy of a lender? When there was no raise last week of March (after the 0518 update) I assumed that BoD had money sitting somewhere and ready to go - surely you don't want to run you business at mercy of a lender if you have options? Mcap at that time was 150m+ and 40% dilution (or much less) would've been sufficient. As I have stated previously on several occasions you have to put faith, as investor, in BoD to steer the ship as many bits of info are not in the public domain but really puzzled here with the sequence of events and BoD 's actions (and the communication we received).
Finally I would like to encourage sharing of any feedback/legal advice people receive as there are a number of us who feel we have been let down. I have noticed several posters here sharing their feedback so far from the conversations with their advisors - many thanks.
For a company with such amazing science, how is it possible BoD have allowed this to happen?
This is the reason why we never invest all money in one biotech and try to have a diverse portfolio - because regardless of how amazing things might look, you never truly know what is going on.