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.
Thoth you posted..............
Thoth2
Posts: 3,105
Price: 0.0375
No Opinion
RE: RNSToday 14:40
If they are trading whilst insolvent. The liquidators can go after their personal assets
This is true, under the Insolvency Act of 76 or 86. A director has a duty of care to their creditors not to incur debt whilst trading insolvently. In breach of that duty of care they can be held personally liable.
I worked on many cases on behalf of clients in my past career. I cannot imagine what unsecured debt they could be incurring. It would be very hard to invoke that in the case where directors can say they have raised money to help sell any of their compounds for income. Shareholders are not unsecured creditors, so be careful not to be expectant that anything can be done on that front.
As I have said before seeking the Directors to receive a disqualification from being Directors again, for a period of 1 year to life is about the best to hope for, I do not understand why those who are responsible for AIM membership are allowing this to happen.
Best of luck guys, I thought the BOD would do something, but nothing so transparant as this. Take care of yourselves
If they are trading whilst insolvent. The liquidators can go after their personal assets
The Articles of Association are on Valirx's website - here is the link:
https://valirx.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Articles-of-Association-ValiRx-PLC.pdf
Pointless emailing a third party contractor with no say and in actual fact no clout, so why not email the Val Lawyer or the Val CFO as no point emailing CEO or COO as they dont even attend GMs do they!
Hi Heid, having been here for a very long time but seldom post, you seem to know what you are talking about, I agree with your assessment, it must be a mistake/illegal, I have also checked for the Articles, they are no longer on the website, what options are available, FCA, SFO, LSE, Ombudsman? I have already emailed Edwards noting my dissatisfaction at the actions taken.
maybe read the rns again / or maybe give me a call / but why or earth do you think this has dragged on as long as it has? (CV-19 aside)
Anybody know when capital reorganisation is now taking place??
Valju, I do agree with you that Suzy would be an ideal replacement for both George and satu in the absence of time and other suitable candidates (she could easily do both their daily work in about 3 hours).
However there is absolutely no sign of budging from George or satu, they will hang on until they are forced out but now this agm, consolidation and placing has been forced upon the company I fear that all the new voting shares will be used to vote yes to all and any resolutions which will result in no change at all for the foreseeable future.
So we are stuck with more of the same until either the company goes bust or another EGM is called.
Everyone keeps saying why not speak to the BoD?
Well why not speak to Suzy? via her Linked In?
As with everything, if you dont ask and all that? THEN make your judgement... dont guess!
Didnt work for us with George did it?
Time for change IMO
Im not telling anyone to do anything other than what they feel is RIGHT for THEM....
I DO have FAITH in SUZY... my choice my call my money... as it is with everyone?
Yes, some are loosing a few thousand, but some are in for 100+ thousand (there choice yes) but if there is ANY hope that some change can improve our chances, then I am all for it personally!
imo
You just know these ****s have waited till Aprils Fools Day to do this... just to rub our noses in it..
Also isn't it funny how a certain poster (SL100) has gone quiet...
I've aid it a few times, i've already written off my investment here...
No product, no chance and deffo no morals amongst the BOD.
And please Vaju and Are, I really appreciate your efforts in trying to rescue this shambles, but please don't tell me that anyone, Dilly included, is worth placing our trust in...
its over...
Wind the company up and take these crooks with it !!
Happy to acquire you loo rolls Heidi... :) Bookers have pallets of them locally to me...
I know it’s April fool day , but ffs, taking the pith or what !
Looks like I will require to review the company’s Articles of Association again, as if there are no existing loopholes contained within them that permits them to prevent shareholders their legal right to vote on resolutions, then the actions that they have taken are illegal IMHO.
I appreciate that the virus is proving difficult to contend with, not only with regards to corporate actions but also with each and everyone of us in our private lives, but that doesn’t mean that existing legal doctrines can just be rode roughshod over, especially so when it has been done in a manner that best suits the BOD’s interests.
Were that to be permissible that would equate to each and every one of us being permitted to break the laws of the land, and steal and riot, to ensure that we could obtain toilet rolls for our families.
Okay, that was a little tongue in cheek, and an over magnification, but never the less the premise is comparative in relation to not being permitted to break the law just so as to meet a goal.
IMHO
RNS Number : 4204I
ValiRx PLC
01 April 2020
1 April 2020
ValiRx Plc
("ValiRx" or the "Company")
Result of General Meeting
London, UK, 1 April 2020: ValiRx Plc (AIM: VAL), a clinical stage biotechnology company, announces the reconvening of the General Meeting that was adjourned on 25 March 2020 and the Result of the General Meeting.
Reconvening of General Meeting
The Company adjourned its General Meeting to be held on 25 March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 situation. However, in the light of the availability of the Conditional Placing, the Board has concluded that their fiduciary duties to stakeholders including the creditors and shareholders of the Company required that the General Meeting should be reconvened as a matter of urgency.
The COVID-19 lockdown makes attendance of shareholders at the meeting impossible and the Board has been unable to find a suitable means of shareholders participating and voting during the lockdown.
The Board note that the shareholders have had the opportunity to vote their shares by proxy.
The Board regards its obligations to its shareholders and creditors as overriding any procedural difficulties that there may be in holding a meeting during the COVID-19 lockdown.
The Company announced on 25 March 2020 that 7 days' notice of the reconvening of the meeting would be required but given both the urgency of the financial situation and the fact that shareholders would not be able to attend and vote at any reconvened meeting because of the COVID-19 lockdown, the Board has decided to allow the proceedings to be decided on a poll based upon the proxies received for the General Meeting at its originally scheduled time.
Accordingly, the Board today reconvened the meeting with certain directors (who are also shareholders) present.
The Board regret that shareholders were unable to attend in person due to the COVID-19 situation but by deciding the resolutions on a poll, the Board believe shareholders are being treated as fairly as possible in the circumstances. To act otherwise would be to disenfranchise those that voted by proxy prior to the COVID-19 lockdown. The Board notes that attendance at shareholders meetings by shareholders who have not already voted by proxy has historically been low.
Result of General Meeting
Resolutions 1 (Ordinary Resolution - share capital reorganisation) and Resolution 2 (Ordinary Resolution - General Authority to issue shares) were passed.
Resolution 3 (Special Resolution - disapplication of pre-emptive rights) did not pass.
The poll results are set out below:-
Resolutions
For
Against
Discretion
Resolution 1
198,742,919
25,741,867
19,868,944
Resolution 2
199,309,669
24,740,401
19,868,944
Resolution 3
158,156,997
60,821,243
19,963,044
Total Voting Rights
The share capital reorganisation will become effective on or around 6 April 2020 when it is expected that admission of the 12,278,61