Member Info for alfista

Merry Christmas to the select bunch of followers here, with special mention for those who keep us up to date on progress. I believe that next year could see valuable increases in business and profits. New investors might consider this slogan "Take a position in Mission" as a well meaning suggestion from me. Can I say that? ;-)

Post up the RNS where the CEO may lose all his holding in a court case then, for balance Not bitter at all, loving it.

Depends where you stepped in I suppose, if you had bought on Riddlers enthusiasm at 72p, I would think you might feel a bit different. Then the solar biz fell out of bed, forcing them to reveal the behind the back deal when investors turned nasty about it. I am no lawyer, but it looks like they were guaranteed a return, and they havent had it, so they may seek redress. I thought at the time that it would be a drag on the sp, despite the flood of RNS's for quite trivial matters, and that has been the case so far. They have also raised funds, as AIM companies do, another great big no no in Riddlers rule book, but again not a squeak from him about that either. Duplicitous.

Then you dont care when I write how you ramped this up to the heavens and care not for the folks who bought in at the peak then. I make that nearly 90% down. Now THAT is hurtful, poor dullards for reading your ramps. Still no criticism of the management here either, when you are usually so critical, why could that be then?

What about a CEO that makes a deal behind shareholders backs. Is that forgiveable then? 72p this stood at, and you called me every fool under the sun when I said I was selling here, you told me I was wrong, talked to like I was a kid. You tried to belittle me in every way you could. Then, months after, you claimed you had sold at the top didnt you.

You said that it was a grudge. It isnt. Break agreements and promises and suffer the result, simple.

Riddler is telling lies I'm afraid. He will not face up to facts. I was being considerate to other holders here by keeping my peace, but infortunately he failed to do the same. The point is that this "third party" is the investment vehicle of the CEO here, and controls his shares. So it is very much relevant that there appears to have beeen no legal settlement of the claim against his company. Also, he set up himself to benefit from work that ACTA had done, in the ignorance of ACTA holders. This may never have come to light except that the deal went sour, causing the claim against his investment vehicle for what could be his entire holding. Still very much a current risk here IMHO

No Riddler, I am interested. Why do you say that no one should be interested in facts which are clearly very relevant here? Do you wish people to overlook this? A matter that may come to the fore should legal proceedings commence at any time, and no doubt go on for a very long time given the nature of Italian justice. Can you see, I could quite legitimately have continued to make these very valid points here for the last two years, but I didnt. Please tell all the other holders here why I didnt. Or alternatively explain the words promise and agreement. If you dont do that, well sorry but......

No Riddler, I remember very clearly that you were calling this share to go to a pound in a race with AFC. Your selective memory is understandable, as you seem to have a habit of forgetting things you have said which do not suit you currently. Would you say that here, the sp has suffered very badly, and is continuing to suffer, because of the material uncertainty surrounding a potential court case which may affect the ownership of a substantial amount of the shares, and that this has been brought about by a transaction that was not disclosed to shareholders at the time? You said earlier you were unfussed about that past. That is not true is it? It is my opinion that you carry things on well beyond the point that normal people would, and that is proven by your habit of keeping to hand clips that you can repost whenever you feel like it. And yet, when the information is not to your liking, your amnesia is total. Is this a medical issue, or a moral one?

By claiming that you sold at the top Riddler, you are admitting that you have profited from someone elses misfortune. The buyers that you so enthusiastically encouraged at 72 p has had their shareholder value trashed, havent they. And you would be highly critical of any share where holders had their value trashed wouldnt you.

So Riddler, find me a post of mine where I have made such wild claims. You will not. Now, let us go back to the period when holders here were mightily fed up that I was questioning your claims on this board, so much so that I think it likely that this site asked you to stop being so provocative. You responded in a humble way, and I said that we should move on, and I respected that agreement. Did you?

That, Riddler, is not relevant is it. What was the sp HERE when the CEO was making a transaction that should have been disclosed to holder here. And, while we are discussing that era, what were YOU saying about the prospects here at that time?

By the way Riddler, remind us what the sp level was when this undisclosed transaction occurred? Greater than today's level, or considerably more?

But Riddler, you enjoy very much raking over old news dont you. Anyway, is it old news oir is it still unresolved news? As a result of the legislative changes to the Italian photovoltaic sector introduced by the Romani decree in March 2011 and subsequent downturn in the Italian photovoltaic sector, the Investment Companies no longer intend to build the photovoltaic consents acquired and have taken legal action against Bertam to obtain payment of €2.9 million for the photovoltaic authorisations. Accordingly the financial situation of Bertam has been adversely affected by the agreement with the Investment Companies and the fall in value of Bertam's investment portfolio which includes the Acta shares which Bertam holds. If the legal action against Bertam ultimately should prove to be successful and an alternative settlement cannot be reached, Bertam may be required to sell shares of Acta in order to settle the Investment Companies' claim.

So Riddler, how do you view his conduct in light of this;- In granting the Call Option to Acta, the Investment Companies relied upon a separate agreement with Bertam S.r.l. ("Bertam"), a company controlled by Paolo Bert, Acta's CEO and 35.3% shareholder in Acta, under which Bertam agreed to purchase any projects that were not built by the Investment Companies or repurchased by Acta under its Call Option. This agreement that Bertam entered into was in order that Bertam could itself build out the projects if Acta did not proceed to do so. This was not disclosed at the time. Upon further review the Board has determined that the Bertam agreement, given the involvement of Bertam as a related party of the Company, and to the degree that it allowed Acta to obtain the Call Option, should have been disclosed at the time.

So, you are a big supporter of the CEO of this company then? Why?

Could it be some internal movement? Seems very odd, but if it is down to whoever did the trade if it was a trade, we are at their leisure. Almost zero tradess, no justification for the drop, MM movements IMHO

Just a reminder that it is the responsibility of the buyer or seller to inform the company, who then inform the market. The amount was a very large percentage so...... Expectations? I expected, and got, excellent revenue growth, clearly increasing market share which is a key aim at this stage. I expected gross margins to be maintained, despite accusations that they wouldnt, but they were. I expected them to be going for growth by investing the max in marketing, promotional and product development acivity, got that too. Expected, because we were told to expect, that the costs of demerger would be a one off hit in the period. Going forward, I expect the big expansion of market reach in the southern hemisphere will be followed by further collaborations in other key markets. Growth, the reason companies float on AIM, and yes, funding needs, nothing at all wrong with that if the business is going in the right direction, all growing companies require increased funding.

Starting with the reported profits whilst in family hands. Different animal, and most probably had the kitchen sink thrown in to build up the value for sale, and of course the headline figure was before divis as that is the efficient way for private company bosses to pat themselves ( cough ;-) So then Provexis bought it, and decide that it couldnt stay as a tiny niche supplier, but should be developed nationally and then internationally to take advantage of the associated sporting success of some famous users of the products. That investment is ongoing, and of course it does take funds, recently these have been raised by a placing at the demerger, but there could well be further cash calls down the line, completely normal for growth companies on AIM market. Sales growth is the key target, profit that could be divi;d up for shareholders is maybe 4-5 years away IMHO, but I dont suppose anyone has bought in for either those type of returns, or even to hold for that long at the moment. The reward should come in terms of share price growth as increasing revenues provide funds for further marketing and production development. Directors pay? Find me a company director who is not well paid, it is simply the way it is. The policy is clear here, they are on a path for growth, using rising revenue to reinvest in further growth. rather than stop the bus and realise profit for very short term gain, pretty standard smallcap share policy I would say. Anyone can understand that and make their own decision.

Post recommended. Good calm analysis. Looks like someone agrees with you enough to throw £10.8k in, lots of the small sells mopped up by that one, and still no explanation of why over 2 million shares changed hands in one hit yesterday.