Member Info for Bankfool

Britshbulldog, I can't disagree. I am very much against others, newbies being suckered into this mess.

Things seems to have gotten a bit heated today.
I think it's time for some facts rather than emotions.
The goal is is to effect change at Valirx such that shareholders can have a reasonsble expection of a return (not that they will get a return, just not a situation that capital raised by share issue does not just get consumed in wages with progress not being made)
As far as I understand there has been no responce from Valirx.
There is no little point in conjectoring if the proposal put to valirx is too much to ask or not. It is for valirx to propose an alterative solution.
If they do it maybe something that can form the basis of a negotiated solution to this crisis. However they have not come up with anything.
There is no ponit in arbitrarily removing GM and sv. However if they are unable to act constructively or at least in good faith to resolve this crisis then it is right that they go.
A formal responce to the SAG is the only appropriate forum other than a GM to adress the crisis.
If members of the BOD are posting on here it is rather pathetic.
Simularly it is also futile to accuse posters of being BOD members etc. Either they are or they are not. If someone has proof that k9p for example is a bod member please send that evidence to Freddie. Otherwise I would ignore such posts. They are malign and designed to upset. This crisis requires resolution and name calling does not add anything.

Rhd1, PAD, got to admit I really don't know what the future is for valirx. The only thing I can predict is that if things were allowed to continue as usual our investments are lost in any case. I can see your ponit that if you kick out two of the BOD members without a plan this very much may precipitate administration. The question is other than blind hope do you have a reason to belive that things might get better if we let business as usual continue? It seems to me that we are in this mess because of a crisis in confidence in the BOD. The only people who can do something to adress this crisis is the BOD. They can make a statement about what they propose to do in responce to shareholders concerns, they can use the time available to compile and publish the results of the VAL201 trial (assuming it is actually complete and not just that recruitment has been completed), they could buy some shares (bargain prices at this time) to demonstrate they have faith in the the company. The fact is that they have done none of these and have stubbornly refused to respond. I am pessamistic for sure, but if I can't trust that the BOD will square up the this crisis the only person I can turn to is myself.

The ponit is not when, establishing that IT WAS said. Any complaint made against the BOD will need to be supported by evidence a claim of GM said "xxxx" is pretty meaningless without some evidence to establish that he did.

I was looking at the age of the BOD members today. Just got the feeling that they were just kiling time to retirement no real need to do anything just take the salary. I saw Oliver was 70! Do you really think that a 70 Yr old is the right person to push things forward? Again I wouldn't have thought about that back in 2012 when I go in and of course they were all younger too.

Hi drac, I think the problem is that regulators have to differentiate between being rubbish at your job from actuality conspiring to do wrong. The issue is evidence. The last consolidation occurred in May 15 (I think) so that is 5 years of relentless share issues. A few issues is not a problem its legitimate fund raising, but at what point did it look like the company was being run into the ground? Looks obvious today, but when I was complaining a year ago there wasn't nearly enough of an appitite to get rid of BOD. I think it is right that we do make complaints to the regulators if only to try and stop the BOD doing more of the same. Best thing is to compose a fact based complaint and send it to the Insolvency service and companies House. I think a complaint based on breach of section 172 (1) (e) and or (f) of the companies act 2006 is feasible.

The 'it bloody works' quote. I know the 6 six weeks quote was in the rns 30 Jan 2020 or 17 Feb 2020

Hi ValJu I am very interested in pining down that particular quote from GM. Do you know where I can can quote it from?

It seems that the BOD are prone to preying on emotions. They want to chip away at confidence, distract people by making them angry, making action look futile. They want to weaken resilliance. It seems to me that games are not won by playing a perfect game (i.e. Not dropping a ponit), games are won by winning the game. Focus on the points you want to win, the ponit you can win. The rest is just distracting irrelevance.

Hi Drac, I don't think there is much millage to be made out of this issue. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. If it didn't happen it's just mind games, it would be a type of bullying. If she is stripped of her directorship does that not resolve the issue? If you Google how to complain about a company it turns out that the Insolvency service is the agency that will investigate this sort of thing. If someone does have some decisive evidence I recommend a complaint is made. If someone has that sort of evidence I will be happy to help anyone with making a complaint. If there isn't any decisive evidence I would just let it go and not get distracted by this issue.

Yes have to admit this does look like a train wreck. Not giving up just yet, but I think it's clear that even if it was business as usual we would all loose our investments in any case. I don't see this as cutting off our nose to spite our face or spitefully getting back at the directors. I think if recovery is not possible it is just an example of bringing things to their natural conclusion. Hopefully change is still possible.

ValJu what do you think of s172 (1)e and f? I think they look interesting.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172

Britsh BD, the Gov UK website has useful information on Insolvancy. If the company is solvent there has to be a members vote. If the BOD can show that the company is insolvent that's a different matter as you can't trade if you are insolvent. If you are interested have a look at the differnce between a Members Volentary Liquidation (MCL) and a Creditors Volentary Liquidation or Creditors Compulsory Liquidation.

Mmm I feel your sence of betyral Freddie. I wouldn't dwell on it though. I would hate for people to be distracted by a BOD member who may be fantalist. Like I said you don't have any reason to reproach yourself it would not have been unreasonable to give the benefit of the doubt. Best focus on moving forwards and addressing whoppers once everything else has been settled.

I would say that it would not have been unreasonable to give satu the benefit of the doubt as that would be a real whopper to tell and there would have been simpler lies to tell . Also not making news coverage might not be enough to establish that a whopper has been told. That said if credible evidence has been found that this stabbing was a lie I would like to see it so that it can be incorporated into any complaint made about company misconduct.

Wow the spread has dropped to something reasonable. A 10% gain and you might even see a profit!

True, but I also wonder what the sp would have been if the BOD were regularly putting their money in and showing that they had confidence in the future. I do wonder if this is an example of the BOD killing the goose that laid golden eggs.

Crikey there was a sitcom called that!

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0094499/

Lmao!!

Does anyone else think 'Life without George' sounds like a second rate BBC sitcom?

It seems to me that we have ended up where we are because the BOD were happy to have a sequence of consolidations and dilutions and were unconcerned that consolidations would wash out those very people buying the shares that funded the research and the salaries. Sure you could protect against being washed out by putting in more money, but what are you getting for the risk you take? Only an increase in what you stand to lose. Roses is quite right, BOD buying shares now wound make a mockery of claims of 'closed period', but perhaps if they had we could have more confidence in them. Their attitude indicates that they did not want to risk their own money, but cynically risked ours. They have treated shareholders like charity donators. Its the reason why something needs to change. You can't expect the BOD to buy shares and you can't expect investors to continue to invest when it's all to evident that there can be no return on investment if the status quo prevails.