focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar 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.
I still cannot understand why they didn’r RNS the OF calling in thr loan?
Yes, the sp would have tanked - but it was at 16p anyways
It would have at leadt given the shareholders the opportunity to decide what to do - rather than now it is completely out of our hands
It probably would have required a 100% or 150% dilution, and more tellingly a change in the BoD’s - which probably Duncan and Co didn’t want.
This has put me off investing in AIM as in theory the BoD can seemingly do as they please!
crl123- how can I join your group to take legal action
I’ve had only a cursory look at this but I can’t understand how a Board of Directors of a public company can have allowed the current position to develop.
It seems to me there are some odd-looking developments, against the interests of small shareholders, in a number of AIM companies and on the LSE generally. It might be an idea for aggrieved shareholders here to have a look at what’s happening at POG (Petropavlovsk). In addition, the police maintain a site called “Action Fraud” for people to report suspected fraud. You’d need to get your ducks in a row first but it’s free and it’s the police.
Good luck with it. I don’t think it’s going to be the last.
The reaction of Interpath is not surprising. They have NO interest in protecting SH's interests as when pressed they have made it pretty clear there is unlikely to be any distribution to PI's.
Interpath already know the value of assets and cash at bank and so long as sufficient funds are available to satisfy Creditors, they (Interpath) have a residual amount to absorb into their coffers.
They are being obstructive in regards claims aginst Individuals probably due to co-operation of Directors is required.
Claims against the Board as an entity will fail whereas directed against the Individual named Directors has a greater chance of success, providing details of maladministration, possible deceit in a public office, are factually supported.
As sunnyca as already stated, and others, the object of the excerise is to ensure named Directors are barred from holding such positions in the future.
I am firmly of the view the Directors either knowing or otherwise Breached the Loan Agreement with Oxford Finance, which then led to the appointment of Adminsitrators. There must be ample documentary evidence to be unc0vered regarding Oxford's warnings of Loan recovery action. Documents which were not rightly released to the Market and Shareholders.
AIMO
imo opinion the administrators are only there to make money for themselves - more than £500k to date and £650/hr is ridiculous!
Duncan and the BoD must never hold such positions ever again.
Interpath are resisting invididual legal claims, saying only they as the company can take action. I have presented them with Article 10 against which they have taken legal advice which imo is contentious. Interpath today stated they are only interested in repaying creditors and going concern was unlikely. I don’t personally believe much of what they say, but it is clear they have NO plan to reimburse shareholders and do not see the company as surviving. The legal route seems to me the only option now.
The Shareholder Action Group represents over $12m invested. I ain’t gonna see that dissolve without a fight .
Sunnyca- can i use your lawyer would he be able to take more than one individual claim against 4d
Their role is to get the best outcome possible. Could be bugger all, could be $50m
We just need to see what happens
The problem being Administrators know how much free cash they have to play with and providing they recover funds owed OF and other creditors, Job done. PI's will be left with nowt.
Just been reading the Administration proposals - quite surprised that of the 7no listed directors, 4 of them held no shares in the company. Only 2 of them had a ‘significant’ number of shares.
Administration costs are already at £580k, charging £662/hr.
Maybe a bit of realisation that baring some kind of sale - and having spent possibly over £100 million of shareholders money - Duncan and Co may have lost us the lot!
Providing factual evidence exists regarding misdemeanors, a Claim can be started. A good Solicitor will have regard to further evidence that may emerge as the Claim procedes.
Read sunnyca's posts, he has commenced an individual claim.
is it too early to take legal action? has anyone done so?
is it too early to take legal action? has anyone done so?
The problem with Collective actions, is bit like Committees where there rarely unanimous agreements.
Each to his own, so if a Group as already formed wishes to take it forward, best of luck.
I would add a number of individual claims would face the Defendant with some big worries.
The legal action against the director is the best option, if we can do it collectively
May I suggest that we collectively take legal proceeding against the director and use one law firm to represent our case against the directors for fraud, as it seems to me the best way forward
Sunnyca, I agree, as I did when you announced your course of action.
Action on a Corporate basis will drag on, absorb time and resources with little result at the end.
My investment here is dead and gone. I feel for those who have been persuaded one way and another, to invest heavily in 4D. It is never wise to invest more than one is prepared to lose especially in Bio=pharmas who tend to be promoting a marvelous innovative procedure.
I do firmly believe Oxford T&C's were seriously breached, most probably by DP and Co attempting to arrange another funding from another 3rd Party. This would be explicitly against the terms of the agreement with OF, unless they had approved which appears unlikely.
The level of Financial competence surrounding the Execs should bar them from future Directorships.
I agree, not just DP though - what was the chief financial officer doing?!!
There is definate a case of witholding information from shareholders when OF called in their loan. Probably much more as well if you did deeper.
I’m interested to see if there is any value to the company after they have gone through over £100m.
I wasn’t heavily invested here but £10k is £10k.
Let’s see if we can get anything back but investing in early stages pharmas, with the ever possibility of dilution and risk of product failiure, is in hindsight not a good way to invest long term. Lesson learned!
Haven't posted for a while as everything is in limbo after issuing a notice of intended prosecution of DP privately for fraud, apparently nothing can proceed further until the administration process is concluded which my solicitors have been informed should be within 3-4 weeks, they are confident that by bringing a private prosecution against an individual rather than the company they will be able to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.
For me that would be DP being unable to hold any similar position again for at least 10 years. Any financial recovery/compensation of my investment would be secondary to me. I do hope that some form of recovery can be forthcoming for the shareholders here but it will certainly not prevent my intended prosecution from going ahead as I believe DP should not be allowed to have any part of any arrangement which may be made.
Total cost to date £210 (just under 1% of the expected loss I've had to absorb) and well worth it to create individual stress for DP. GLA
'More than willing to lose' is the key point, where there is the possibility of great reward there is inevitably great risk if there wasn't then the reward would not be so high. It's a nice to have if it comes off, it's a shrug and lesson learned if it doesn't.
Personally I'm a tad too exposed here, averaged down a little thinking that the distressed seller would stop the rot, thinking that the managements knowledge when they bought in at £1.20 was actually important, believed that because of their background they'd be all over the financing, and then finally thinking 'what's the point in selling'.
More active management or a lower tolerance to risk is needed. Sell early or invest little enough that it's not an issue.
Fairdealer. This is a realistic view IMO. I have a modest loss comparered to others. 10K in a SIPP. But have exactly the same view as yourself. Pence in the pound is all we can hope for, I can't see a better outcome. Shafted.
The Administrators were appointed by a major creditor,OF. The Administrators have replaced the BOD and are not answerable to Ordinary Shareholders, but out of courtesy keep us informed. Remember Oxford applied to Court who in turn confirmed the appointment of the Administrators.
Note the Administrators are endeavouring to put together a Committee of Creditors. If successful this will not include Shareholders.
Employees have greater rights than PI's
Hi Taverham
My understanding of insolvency law is that an administrator replaces the BoD, not the shareholders. They can and will carry out anything they need to do to release value. They are not in an insolvency process but administration, which means the final say so should be presented to the shareholders. If it were an insolvency, it would not require shareholder approval but court approval. But I am happy to be corrected.
Intrepid
This sad,sorry and tardy affair should serve to in form Investors, putting Boys in charge where Men are needed, inevitably ends in disaster. How "experienced" Directors agreed a Funding facility which in less than 12 months is recovered, beggars belief. There is more that PI's are not being told. An agressive Financial Reporter is required to uncover ALL of the shortcomings.
As for SH's possibly, getting 3p, forget it, just look at the Administrator's Fees which are ramping up daily.
This affair should act has a lesson to those who Invested Life savings in a highly Risked company. Those who have posted here continually ramping, "Bull run to 160p", " News to drop soon" and of course a "STRONG BUY". Those who have contributed such persausive posts ought to have a conscience and realise what they have done!
The Old addage should now be impressed on every unfortunate investor's mind, "NEVER INVEST MORE THAN YOU ARE PREPARED TO LOSE"
The administrators are currently exploring several strategies, including the sale of the business as a whole, a sale of 100 per cent shareholdings in its subsidiaries, piecemeal asset sales and a refinance.
Report confirms offer deadlines had been set with interested parties but the details of indicative offers could not be disclosed subject to confidentiality agreement provisions.
Oxford Finance has the benefit of a debenture dated 29 July 2021, comprising fixed and floating charges over the group's assets, with an amount outstanding of $13.9m. Interpath have confirmed that, subject to a successful sale of 4D Pharma, Oxford Finance may recover against its indebtedness in full.
Secondary preferential creditors, comprising HMRC and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, are expected to recover their indebtedness in full.
The administrators have also estimated that a dividend will be made to unsecured creditors, but the quantum is currently uncertain - This is the official position.
@Zebbo, not sure how you arrived at 3p but despite personally writing this one off 100%, i wont tempt fate but it does look like something may well be recoverable. Your 3p call may not be that far off. We will know soon enough.
Disappointing, not sure about anyone else but it really does put you off fledgling biotech's per sae. They just eat cash and investors keep getting diluted and just take so dam long to get ANY product anywhere close to commercialisation and the risks of failure at every stage even at phase 3 so great that most are not good long term holds.
The secret really is to bag your profits on the SP spikes. Had i done that on 4D i would have made some reasonable returns, instead i got greedy and down averaged.
GLA