Member Info for fairdealer20

A collective action may suit many shareholders, however it has to be co-ordinated, will consume time and money, OK an agressive Legal entity may take it on a No win No fee basis. Also should the company return from Administration a different complextion could be put on such an action.
I tend to agree with sunnyca's approach, for this reason, amongst others, should DP be culpable of some misdemeanor, the CPS will take up the cudgels, and any conviction will leave the door wide open to other claims against DP.

A collective action will need to prove on the balance of probabilites DP and others have been negligent. This type of Case would drag on for a considerable time.

Every interested Shareholder must make their own decision on the course of action too be adopted.

Roache read sunnyca's earlier post. In essence he is taking unilateral action against DP. It could be more effective for each agrieved Shareholder to follow his example.
One Director being taken to task by umpteen individual Shareholders may well get a better result than a posse of shareholders taking concerted action against the Company who will just kill time and totally frustrate Claimants.

Read sunnyca's posts you will find them very helpful.

Platinum got the colder shoulder in January 21, when RF was completing, discreetly, the management deal with Brains.
The Brain's arrangement could deter a further approach. Brain's pubs are leased, however after the deal with us was completed, 6 months after, Brains placed their Freehold estate on the market. Not sure if the Estate has been sold.

Sounds,, it is just the indexes 4D is suspended. What has happened too the NASDAQ listing?

sunny... thanks for the further update. A corporate action could be complicated and time consuming as that is how corporates will wear claimants out. Action against the individual should focus the mind of DP. Understand your action is individual, hopefully succesful, which could become case law and therefore help others here who are agrieved.

sunny... you have covered it comprehensively, thanks. The SFO could be involved???

Sunny.. admire your tenacity. Deep pockets will be needed, DP will have Liabilty Insurance, so unlikely to cost him a bean.
However his name will be blackened, which could be the end of his Directorship anywhere

I can only relate the advice and consequential refund I received. Maybe my Accountant knows angles, he is very good.

As stated each individual has different circumstances and should seek Professional advice.

Have discussed this isssue with my Accountant sometime ago. Can elect to reclaim income tax payed in the year a Capital loss occured or carry the Loss forward to use aginst future gains. Remember each payer has a CGT exemption amount. THis is an annual amount which cannot be carried forward if not used.

Each individual has circumstances which a good Accountant/Tax Advisor can advise.

Sounds..the company statement would be believeable had they attempted a placing ot Rights issue, but for reasons best known to the BOD have chosen not too, why??

Mumbo, agree, it was absolute folly to arrange loans from Oxford. It is assumed DP convinced them income streams and or other funding would be achieved. The company, as do most fledgling bio-techs, raise funds annually. Entry to NASDAC, was seen as an additional method to increase liquidity, however the arrival of Oliviera did the reverse, his activities raised suspicions which have not been answered. Why 1 investor was allowed to invest so much without proper financial health checks and agreements is quite bizarre.

crl, who or what encouraged you to invest so much here?

gog.... as usual LSE gets it wrong. To change a date requires 28 days notice.

unless advised otherwise, assume it goes ahead 9.00am on Tuesday 28th in Leeds.

Soundrisky, remember MSD have a 5% holding in 4D. Do we really know what agreements exist between 4D and Merck? Suspect Merck have in place some conditions which their army of Lawyers will be pawing over whilst the Administrator is doing the necessary.
Merck may have come across has friends to DP, but business is business.
Could DP become a Consultant for Merck??

Fatgreek, not sure the company's application ( Joint Administrator) will succeed. The Loan agreement with Oxford gives the lender the right, once all corporate protocols have been followed, to appoint the Administrator, which they have done.

Any sale of the Company, as reported in Sunday Times, could happen quickly. Oxford want thier money and the Administrator will be aware the outstanding loans, arrears and charges attract premium interest rates on a daily basis. These charges will be compounded. The quicker a deal is done the more possiblity crumbs will be left for shareholders. It is a vain hope but possible.

Zebbo that was exactly my point in the earlier post. A lot of energy being used for no good purpose.

Sang.. majority of experienced Investors should realise and accept the risks with Stock Investments and should have done due diligence. Never invest more than one is prepared to lose. I have accepted the loss which is not as great as some here.
Shareholders, great and small, relie on Directors being open and transparent. They are Elected on the basis of protecting and promoting Members interests.

I came in following the Woodford debache, seeing a company with great potential given the new and unique procedurers being developed. The science is ground-breaking and could bring massive curative results, as MSD realise.

The problem here is we have Execs who have failed to understand basic financial management, but relie on the good faith of Funders, which in a very short time has expired.
The calibre of Directors here leaves much to be desired.

I accept responiblity for my investment decisions and have accepted the loss, which proportionately is small in relation to my overall portfolio. It is the guys and ladies here who have sunk life savings into a badly managed company, who I feel for, they deserve better, but alas any Legal action will fail.
All that can be hoped is a "Company Doctor" is brought in to turn around this mess.

The BOD any BOD are required to inform the Market of any event that materially affects the Share price.
Our BOD need not have given precise details of negotiations with Oxford, which clearly occured, but just say Funding negotiations were ongoing. DP choose to not make any such statement, but rather believe the problem would disappear
An Exec who recieved 82% pay increase last year displays a complete lack of PR skills.

Directors have an obligation to promote, protect shareholder's Interests. If a Claim were to be lodged, Shareholders acting in Concert would need to prove on the balance of probabilities, the BOD have acted against Shareholder's Interests, whether though incompetence or deliberate. A serious claim which the BOD would dispute if only on the basis they have significant shareholdings. The dilemma for shareholders could not be clearer.

Regret to say, have seen it all before, even brilliant Scientists with unique and innovative procedurers, rarely make good Financial Managers?

All we can hope is pressure persaudes the Execs to resign and be replaced with an experienced Competent Financial Wizard

Porky, what a naive post. You should read the Charge documents filed at Company House.
Oxford have charges over the company's assets including Intellectual Property.

Too believe DP was convinced OF would continue to support the company is clearly nonsense and indicates a level of competence any experienced Businessman would find laughable. As Fatgeek points out the Execs would have been aware in April the parlous situation 4D was facing. A Warning Notice would have been issued at least 1 month ago when default on loans was evident.
Think about how did DP intend to repay loans taken out less than 1 year ago? The hasty arranged presentation following the apparent failure to get Proposition 9 approved, signifies an air of desparation to raise funding. Oxford's position was already known as shown by recent events. The actions or rather inactions of the BOD shows a level of competence expected of children in a playground.
For the Company too survive a complete clear-out of top management is necessary.

AIMO

dyl as already stated Oxford have a charge over the IP's. The Administrators can only sell with the sgreement of OF and then any consideration is returned to Oxford to help clear the loans