Member Info for Fredd1eboy

commence reading from 17.21 post.....I have posted these which follow on from that time to this most recent one

Please read this lengthy post from the earliest time to this last post

If I were to have an influential position in the company I would be endeavouring to influence the board to increase both accuracy and detail of shareholder communications – to include indicative timelines and budgets against which the board can be held accountable; and to link board member salaries, bonus payments and/or option awards to those measures. I believe that in the current climate of economic instability, even more so than ever, the overheads for any company need to be closely managed and reduced to the minimum feasible; and in this case, I believe the overall ambitions for the company need to be updated to reflect the current industry trends for possibilities for out-licensing and funding partnerships at different stages in drug development.

In summary, I think the business would benefit from a complete overhaul and refresh of, not just of image, but of the very foundations that the image needs to accurately reflect – but only if it is the will of the shareholders!

In Valirx, the shareholders have shown themselves to be people of good business understanding, as well as compassionate for the cause; and only with the backing, the understanding and the co-operation of these shareholders can the company move forwards, and I believe this is an ideal opportunity for that to happen – whichever team is in charge.

*Disclosure: The author is a company director of a subsidiary of Valirx (ValiSeek), but has had no resources in or around Valirx plc since 21st February 2020. The opinions and analysis in this article contain no inside information and reflect my personal views only; they do not represent the views of any other person or corporate body.

While in an ideal world, the scientific capabilities of both potentially outgoing individuals would still be accessible, whether through short term consultancy contracts, or via a period of “garden leave” whereby the old could carry out a dignified handover to the new. However, in these circumstances, where the old are potentially being forcibly removed to make room for the new, regardless of individual characters, such a handover would be unlikely to be easy.

I think at this stage, it’s important to put this in the context of the specific company, and of the very nature of a ‘virtual biotech’. While the central company, Valirx, has a very important role as Sponsor of the trial, and of forming the initial scientific ideas and inventions that initiate a trial, the actual execution and day-to-day running of a clinical trial in a virtual biotech is carried out by a ‘Clinical Research Organisation’ (CRO), or a team of individuals sited within a selection of CROs. The Sponsor (the company Valirx, not any named individual) is legally required to have full oversight of the trial and the contractors, but nevertheless, it is the CROs who provide for smooth running of the trial.

Valirx follows this model, so with the removal of the two executive directors in question, there should be no reason for the close down of the VAL201 clinical trial to be impacted at all by the changeover, as capable people at the CROs will continue to work with continuity despite changes within the Sponsor. In fact, the impact of the virus lockdown is more likely to influence timelines, as restrictions on staff entering the hospital to verify patient notes and data prior to analysis, as well as key personnel being hampered by school and nursery closures.

I’ll admit that I have ulterior motive for requesting that you get your votes in in plenty of time. If the majority of shareholders do indeed vote in favour of both resolutions, I believe the remaining board should and will consider appointing myself as a director.

I believe the vote is required as a genuine poll to assess whether the true majority of shareholders wish a wholesale change in the leadership of the company (it’s always difficult without such a referendum to know whether you are talking to a noisy minority or a true majority of voters), but if a change is voted for, then this needs to be immediately enacted, with personnel capable of hitting the ground running, with knowledge of the projects, and an open mind on how to incorporate the best of the old, alongside a radically new business plan.

Remember also that, to my understanding of the articles, if a director is appointed by the board (rather than by the shareholders) then that director will automatically be subject to a re-appointment vote at the next AGM. If my understanding is correct, this means, that if the directors appoint me in April as a director, then you, as shareholders, can choose whether or not to keep me as a director as soon as the AGM (which would be expected to be in June). This gives me just a couple of months to assess the situation, initiate a working plan to move the company forwards, and present that plan to you all formally. With the AGM so soon after the new directors are appointed, this provides the shareholders an immediate feedback possibility.

With the cut-off date set by the number of working days before the meeting, it’s important to take note of the double bank holiday approaching this weekend. To be sure of your vote being counted, I would strongly recommend submitting it by tomorrow at the latest! Under normal circumstances, you would still be able to attend the meeting to register your vote (or change your pre-cast vote), but on this occasion, with the lockdown still in force, it would be logical to assume the meeting will take the same format as that held last week (albeit with more notice).

According to the publicly available company articles, the company can exist with only two directors, so the remaining two current directors, Gerry Desler and Kevin Alexander are sufficient to keep the company open until they can hold a board meeting to appoint their chosen replacements. With Peterhouse contributing Martin Lampshire (as announced on 1st April 2020) to the board as a non-executive director, ideally a further one or two executive members of the board could be immediately added (subject to nomad approval of suitability), taking the total to either four or five (four is always a difficult number for decision-making by a board – even if two of them aren’t related!).

With one hurriedly convened General Meeting last week, Valirx (AIM:VAL) have another scheduled for next week, on 14th April. This time it is the meeting that has been requested by a group of shareholders, with two resolutions proposed: one to remove George Morris as a company director and the other to remove Satu Vainikka as a director.

Both are ordinary resolutions, so if the vote in favour of the resolution is over 50% of the total votes, then the individual should be immediately removed from their directorships.

Regardless of whether you believe they are the best people to run the company, and therefore want to vote against the resolutions, or whether you agree with the group who have requested the meeting and wish for them both to be removed; the most important thing is to make sure your voice is heard. You need to make sure that your voting intention is registered, for most people through your share trading account, or via the proxy form.

Agreed Valju. .perhaps the bod are listening to our constructive criticisms and sensible suggestions for improving performance and consequently share value.....time will tell!!!!

I'll second that valju.. .

Wouldn't it be refreshing if the BOD have not just filed our list of concerns and recommendations but have actually given them due consideratuons and actioned some very sensible points raised.
I live in hope, as if they don't, were dammed, but on the other hand!!

I feel so sorry for the owners of potentially beautiful buildings under attack from damage resulting from undermining Japanese knot weed.
But there is a solution, albeit initially costly ......drag out the weed.... and in the process...underpin its damaged foundations .....then once stable....work on it to reinstate build on, restore and add value to it's inherent beauty.
I genuinely hope our building is Valirx 201/401.

Hi Roses. Any chance of posting contents as I'm not a member of *************.
Best wishes. Fred

Thanks for clarifying scooby

Ref photos....I don't know when they were taken...so it would not be fair to assume recent.

Thanks for sharing Scooby...I can confirm I've seen it.. What's a disgrace!

Without prejudice...
Read carefully as this is the most informative, Valirx related, post I've ever read
No smoke and mirrors....I read change is imminent...and change for the better.
Real cost savings.
Accountability.
A prelude to the icing on the cake....rid ourselves of George Morris and his "strongly rumoured "kick backs"...once and for all.
I for one will vote to keep the company afloat....to salvage whatever I can of my diminished shareholdings.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/suzy-dilly-7323354_activity-6651019625289052160-AIEN

Today, Valirx plc (AIM:VAL) has announced the conditional raising of £200,000, shortly before their re-convened General Meeting to discuss whether the consolidation can happen that will allow these shares to even exist. On the face of it, this is hardly surprising, but I’d like to walk you through a selection of publicly available pieces of information to help spread greater understanding of the consequences of both anticipated public meetings, and the reason why today’s announcement has such important ramifications for the company going forwards. Please be assured that as this is derived solely from information in the public domain, coupled with my own opinions (these will be clearly highlighted as such) this contains no inside information.

Valirx have a bit of a well-discussed reputation for so-called “bucket-shop” equity placings, frequent, highly discounted and each with relatively low levels of total funding raised. Whether or not this reputation is deserved (and that’s something I’m not even going to consider discussing here), in my opinion, this anticipation of further fund raises every few months, and the discounts applied contribute to preventing a healthy share price rise, as even with consistent and positive newsflow, investors are reluctant to buy when they know they can pick them up cheaper at the next placing.

As a statement of fact, derived from the list of RNS announcement, in the last couple of years, there has been total of four funding announcements in 2019 and three in 2018 – with only one of those raising over £1 million.

So what is special about this funding announcement? Well, I believe there’s three things that actually make this one different. After all, the amount raised is hardly enough to carry on the cash-burn seen over the past few years.

Firstly, the price of the placing. Clearly this is at a discount to the current price – but I have reason to believe this was negotiated prior to the adjourned General Meeting, when the Bid price was indeed around this level. This clearly demonstrates the company’s ability to raise cash when required, and fulfils the need to pass the insolvency test of whether ‘it would be reasonable to assume cash can be raised to continue trading’.

Secondly, this is conditional on Peterhouse being able to appoint their chosen director, Martin Lampshire. Assuming he is a Peterhouse employee, this is really interesting, as it shows that not only are Peterhouse showing an active interest in the future development of the company (also demonstrated by their condition of being sole broker), but that regardless of the outcome of the second convened general meeting (the one that poses the question of removal of George Morris and Satu Vainikka as directors), the board will be more balanced as a result. No longer will the board have just four members with two of them being connected individuals who (rightly or wrongly) could be perceived as acting as one (but with two votes).

Thirdly, the

....we don't wish to lose what's left of our investments.
We wish for change....for the betterment of shareholders..
So much irreversible damage has been done by GM.
The BOD are fully aware what shareholders are asking for.
There must be more to this RNS...it needs reading carefully.
If I can find out more meat to add to the bones of this RNS I will immediately share.
In the meantime, personally, I'm a realist and not horrified....but I have averaged down and down, but cannot do so any longer...so just hope there is light at the end of the tunnel..for us...best of luck as the finish line is so much closer.
As I said...GM has a lot to answer for.

....any announcement would fall flat as the moment has been lost...the price of selfishness and greed