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.
They should be locked up
tbh wrote it off 2 months ago :(
Fine example of EU business relations. I'll vote UKIP.
Write the off as I have received a letter from barclays and my mate from hsbc...shareholders getting jack s....t
is taking the ****
Crooks..hope they settle soon n we find out what's happening
Hope everyone is ok, iv personally written this one off because the stress associated with trying to recover any founds isn't worth it IMHO. These fukkkkers knew what was going to happen and they didn't try and stop it..... I'm extremely ****ed off but I'm letting this one go....
Wish it would just get settled quickly
Havent wrote it off yet no but not holding much hope, not going to try and guess the outcome as always seem to get it wrong! lol Time will tell i guess
Jamzyee... You wrote off your money here? Or any hope?
Longer than i had hoped :¬/
How long do these things take?
and got no reply-not encouraging! Im sure we are just waiting ages to be told we're shafted.
For shareholders...
hoping for an update this week!
Mas For record action against board is not a suggestion Clarification on subjects is. No one can take or suggest action without consequence , subsequently if you decided you want to take "action " you need to be prepared to back your claims. Not an easy job. Much better to seek clarification from which you begin to make considered judgements . Shareholders are entitled to a degree of protection , but no one will make any progress with stabs in the dark .
Clarifies PI genuine concerns not wild guesses or contentious claims. I give up on mobile please accept my apologies G
Mobile again . ... A bit more to follow but I have things to deal with . That was a draft too so I may have to request deletion. Mobile doesn't paragraph things either . Will try and fix later Essentially thiugh Shareholders are entitled to ask ( but no need to accuse ) for clarification and protection of their value. However if the whole value of sale ( providing it is Fair value) is less than first charge debt then it is unlikely money will flow back. Clarification needed in understanding whether the deal is fair value and that all sale values were sought . One question could be when were the business aware of an offer and did they advise All shareholders at earliest opportunity before suspension, that a sale was a possibility . None of this commentary suggests that anyone has acted inappropriately - I think its important that sensible communication clarif
I am mobile and have been trying to update The message was removed at my request nothing sinister and nothing mentioning specific businesses - what was posted was a draft and by accident because of mobile app - it want complete It was a general overview of group control of subsids- with reference to whether the sale of a subsid was an effective sale of group asset. I took a steer in the general matter from two separate corporate lawyers . Bittom line is that if by definition the group officers control the subsid then the subsid can be deemed to be a group asset - you need to be clear on the exact definition of control. After that it then depends on what purpose there would be for pursuing a course to prove this. If the sale value exceeds debt then in simple terms the net gain after all creditors can be returned to shareholders ( last in the pecking order and remember all shareholders.) A couple of other things to consider . If an subsid is an asset then is the asset being sold at fair value ( for all the shareholders ) what are the terms of the deal ? If the deal has a structure for future payments then perhaps until those milestones have been reached their can be no winding up of the group ( due to an asset still outstanding. Additionally if a group owns an asset in a subsid then no officer of a subsid can do a deal that effectively can be deemed as a private commission (say a new role or bonus or shareholding in the acquired business - NONE of which I am suggesting but should it happen could prejudice shareholder valid particularly if the sale value was offset on a private deal) So ignoring all the noise around what's gone on its best to focus on understanding what a shareholder seelking fair outcome should do. Specific to HTIG The best kick off ( and cheapest) is a letter outlining concerns to the board and or chairman or both. This could be from all individually concerned or 1 representing a group. Content could focus on Concern that shareholder value has been eroded through sale of assets deemed to be under the control of group . Concern that communication did not highlight the possible insolvency Of group through the German process whether positive or negative outcome. In fact it perhaps eluded to only risk being subsid. Requirement to understand General Terms of sale of GmbH and intentions for sale proceeds returned to group Clarification of the whole solarnext sell down and appropriate proportionate valuation and consequent returned value to group business and that individual shareholders didn't benefit
no it was something regarding to take some action against bod.imo. why would that be removed??did someone report that post??or bod took some action??confusing!only gster can answer that.
I suspect it was the post regarding director dealings around SolarNext AG.
One of Gster post was removed last week, i wonder why???
http://www.lbc.co.uk/fifa-decides-on-qatar-world-cup-final-date-106748
Excellent, thanks Harley!
had any contact with the company?