Member Info for FlyingHigher

It's possible this could be boosted by an II buying to push the vote through with a back hander afterwards.

That won't benefit PIs.

Vote no!!!

Nigwit is a plant!

Vote No!

This arrangement will not serve you well!

Where are the people who pumped this rubbish? This is a terrible investment that will go horribly wrong

I just sold out and moved into ETFs.

I made an insignificant profit - basically break even.

I'm changing my investment strategy to create more space in my head.

Good luck all!

Wrong button - STRONG BUY!

The ceiling is blowing!

I'm seriously impressed with this update. I think the gap to the 40p research note valuation should start to close.

We all hope it closes completely of course! :)

I would prefer an AIM listing to preserve flexibility for shareholders in the interim. If the company don't come up with something over the next few years, they probably never will anyway and it will be over. All the matched bargaining facility does for us is makes our shares very difficult to realise value from. I wonder if Nanoco became unstuck when they realised they had also infringed Shoei's IP. Their bargaining plan was left in tatters. Pure speculation of course!

Sol Gold raised loads of money at 1p, then struck gold and sent their share price to 40p. Investors were cheesed off at the raise, but not so cheesed off when the shares rocketed on news of a JV.

AIM companies need money and good ones provide growth so as they grow the money is absorbed to preserve a profit for those who get in at a good price. We have funds for the next phase, which should prove value. Once value is proven, equity is raised at a higher price hopefully. The prospect of a raise shouldn't deter investors in AIM companies because generally companies list on AIM to raise cash. It's kind of the point of AIM.

If the company delists, it's possible that the share exchange mechanism will be terminated.

Then the question is: Is it guaranteed for your shares to be given a split of any buyout?

I believe the protection is removed and I can't see what obligation they have to pay shareholders.

I really don't understand this process.

If they are obligated to retain the shares and those shares will be paid their percentage of the sale, I could understand shareholders voting for this.

Of course, there's still a risk that there won't be a sale and you're left with shares that are extremely difficult to trade.

Terrorwit, it's risky because the match bargain facility will get low traction and the market will be dead for trading. I've been involved in trading for many years and this is the first I've read about OTC trading. I imagine many others haven't heard of it, so on this basis my assumption is our shares will be near impossible to trade, leaving us at the mercy of any offer. It disempowers holders.

The point is delisting is extremely risky for shareholders who are being asked to vote for it, so you're voting for the demise of your own investment Terrorwit. I don't know why you would do that. Are you a philanthropic investor? If so, you must have lost a lot of money!

Brian please give us a Tenner (after our shares go bust)

Could it be that Medpal AI will rocket in November? Speculative of course, but it would make sense if they get even the smallest slice of the enormous AI healthcare pie.

Vote NO! It's simply not in our interests to remove the protections around our own shares.

Terrorwit makes a credible case for the business strategy of it, but this will screw shareholders, who have already suffered so much.

Lose this vote and it's effectively over.

I want the vote to fail. I don't see any benefit to shareholders. It introduces immeasurable risk to our remaining capital.

That's what I'm worried about. You have theoretical shares in a company that has no obligation to you and you only have value if someone else buys your shares, but the whole value of shares in a listed stock is derived from the percentage of equity in an asset and a voting right. Therefore with this derivative broken, shares are effectively a worthless piece of paper. Am I missing something? If that's an accurate summation, it would make the most sense to vote against the proposal.

I just don't understand the mechanics of the matched bargain facility.

I want to sell my shares at £10 per share. Someone comes in and says no I'll offer you 1p. We counter and counter and counter then agree to sell at 3p.

Is it something like that?

Also, LSE provides a wrap around what it means to be a shareholder.

Do we still retain our voting rights in a private company? It seems not, therefore is it theoretically possible for us to vote this in then have all our rights diminished?

Terrorwit - I understand the financial aspect of this, but are we potentially voting to remove all value from our own shares if there is no mechanism to test that value?

Thanks! So this may all bode well for the company and hopefully employees, but I think there is considerable doubt about whether shareholders will keep their remaining money. In which case, why will you vote to lose your own cash? I agree that the vote will likely be a formality.