Member Info for HeadInTheSand

WM, no password needed - not every cynic speaks with forked tongue. Just go to www.redtrescero.es (the homepage), click on the green "Aceptar" button in the box that pops up (you don't need to enter any details), then click the RED TODAY link on the grey bar... You'll then be able to scroll through synopses of hundreds of articles, all in some way related to aspects of biotech in what is (to me at least) very obviously nothing more than an industry e-zine section intended to promote in general that biotech is important in health management.

WM, I'm not disputing the content in the least (which I made sure I went fairly thoroughly over before posting my opinion). It is exactly as you state. It's my read on the *significance* (or not) of that content that is markedly different. What I'd suggest before people start breaking out the Dom Perignon, is that they should take a look at the wider context. That piece on the Onitor was in the "Red Today" section of that website. That section is comprised of a whole host of articles generally relating to biotech covering a wide range of subjects - there's some on robotics for example. Hence my personal view on this as not much more than effectively an industry blog mention, rather than a sign of anything telling... But hey - each to their own.

A couple of things... and in advance I freely admit I am the biggest cynic as far as ABH and CTAG are involved. Redtrescero.es is indeed a domain apparently owned by Amgen. Amgen is indeed apparently the world's largest INDEPENDENT biotech company (not the world's largest as elsewhere posted but hey, still pretty darn big). So, all looking pretty good so far... but this is where my personal doubts start to kick in. If there is a tie-in between Amgen and Cloudtag, why is the only reference to it on a webpage on some Amgen backwater domain, run out of Spain? Why is there no mention whatsoever of Cloudtag or Onitor anywhere on amgen.com? My view? The "RED Today" section of redtrescero.es (and that's the section in which the Onitor is mentioned) is effectively nothing more than a news blog run out of Spain that is just populated with multiple stories and press releases of vague interest about cardiac health and technology. Hence the re-appearance of the age-old photo of the Onitor Tracks - to me, it's no more significant than the swathe of online publications that repeated Cloudtag press releases word for word 15 months ago around CES 2017. Take the above view with whatever pinch of salt you think appropriate... and bear in mind that I am a self-confessed cynic, as stated above. Having said that, I'll bet I'm right...

dconors, unfortunately IMO that person you mention absolutely does have a very firm clue on what he's doing. It's just that what he's actually doing isn't at all what he's announcing to as many mugs as possible that he's doing...

Chesh, There is a new bird going up from the Viasat/Eutelsat consortium that will offer better speeds and cheaper data. 2020 is the predicted onstream date. Unfortunately, it's still a geostationary satellite, so sits over the equator as it must. The speed of light still applies (no, really), so there's no way to avoid the latency that's been stipulated against by OfCom. Ye cannae change the laws of physics, Cap'n. The clever money now says that Viasat/Eutelsat won't bother with beams over the UK. The only way round this for satellite is with MEO or LEO (mid/low earth orbit) satellite constellations... but we're a long LONG way off that. Research 03B or Elon Musk's Starlink proposals for LEO info, if interested.

Can't blame the last developer for leaving. The recent court case suggest that nobody's being paid what they're owed - and why is that the case if Amit has invested �1 million of his own money, like mystery man Mr Bligh assured Tim and WakeyMitch at the Feb meeting? You'd think that valid creditors would be paid out... anyone got any odds on a winding up order, at least on the long-dead UK subsidiary? Re DavidGreece, I think he's abandoned that ID on LSE and is majoring on promoting shares via his Twitter feed. Re the other arch CTAG pumper from north of the border, he's attempted to run the same hustle on another couple of stocks since (COPL and NFX). However, from what I've seen, he is now too notorious on bulletin boards. So his methodology of buying in low, then ramping the living bejaysus out of the share, but silently selling into the rise and being well out by the time the bubble inevitably bursts, leaving mug PIs holding the ****ty end of the stick seems to be quickly spotted and ignored. Probably why he's taken to penning blogs - he can't be howled down there.

The government today published the results of OfCom's consultation into the forthcoming Universal Service Obligation - including a minimum service specification - which will define future government strategy. The USO will be a legal right for every premises to have access to a broadband service of minimum 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload for free (up to a maximum cost of �3,400 for provisioning the premises - with industry expected to fully fund that cost). Any additional cost over and above that will need to be paid by the premises owner. No government funding is being made available. As expected, geostationary satellite-delivered broadband has been specifically excluded as a feasible technology to deploy because of the maximum latency criteria (max 200ms). The speed of light (300,000 km per second) means that a round communication trip from say London to a geostationary satellite above the equator and back (40,000 km x 2) is going to take 266ms - and that's without any other lagging factors. (Typically in the real world, satellite broadband latency ranges between 600-900 ms). Short term, the slightly better news is that the existing subsidised 2 Mbps Universal Service Commitment scheme is set to continue for at least another 9 months - and probably beyond that, because it's going to take a couple of years to decide how to implement the USO, now it's been defined both technically and commercially. However, the UK at least is going to see an ever more rapidly -increasing marginalisation of satellite (and thus decreasing of number of properties provisioned) over the next few years. SSW's Quickline acquisition had better pretty rapidly step into the forthcoming breach. For those interested, the policy is downloadable at:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/695121/USO_consultation_government_response_28_March.pdf Section 4 (page 23) of the document states:- "Ofcom�s December 2016 technical advice to Government was that a wide range of current technologies could meet the proposed specification: fixed (notably Fibre To The Premise (FTTP)28, and Fibre To The Cabinet (FTTC)29, fixed wireless, and mobile technologies. The technologies that Ofcom looked at were selected because they were available and in use at that time; offered the opportunity to provide coverage across the UK; and the costs associated with them were relatively well understood. We understand from Ofcom�s 2016 technical advice, that based on its current capabilities, particularly on latency, current satellite broadband services, which use satellites on a geostationary orbit could not meet our proposed specification."

What's worth comparing and contrasting with these court proceedings is Bligh's claim at the recent meeting that Amit had put a million quid of his own cash in to fund the company. If that's true (shyeah, right), clearly none of those funds have been used to clear creditors' debts, however small... Anyone surprised?

Bignose that's a good question and one I don't know the answer to. CTAG's A of A are dated 2012, but whether their content carries more clout than the Companies Act, I'm unsure. Possibly a more telling point doesn't lie within the calling of an EGM (which would only require 10% - or maybe 5% of overall share votes) is the percentage of votes needed to carry any resolutions therein. That'd need to be 75% (I think, because these would be special, not ordinary resolutions?)... but 75% of votes cast, rather than 75% of the total maximum possible votes. Still, this would be a hard thing to achieve....

Errr, HBIGWIN, it's not like the BoD would have a choice - and that's why you've seen the 10% figure bandied about. This from Cloudtag's articles of association:- "General meetings shall also be convened on the written requisition of any Member or Members entitled to attend and vote at general meetings of the Company who hold not less than 10 per cent of the paid up voting share capital of the Company deposited at the registered office of the Company specifying the objects of the meeting for a date no later than 21 days from the date of deposit of the requisition signed by the requisitionists, and if the Directors do not convene such meeting for a date not later than 45 days after the date of such deposit, the requisitionists themselves may convene the general meeting in the same manner, as nearly as possible, as that in which general meetings may be convened by the Directors, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the requisitionists as a result of the failure of the Directors to convene the general meeting shall be reimbursed to them by the Company."

Nogg, I'm no international corporate law expert, but I doubt that a privately held Caymans incorporated company can publish anything via Companies House, even if it wanted to. I'm not even sure that such a company is obliged under CI law to file even the most abbreviated set of accounts anywhere. So I still can't see a viable alternative to an EGM with an independent audit resolution being voted through, if PIs want disclosure that they can rely on.

As per posted elsewhere, would those of a (very understandably) more cynical turn of mind believe any assurances and/or evidence given/produced by ABH/Bligh in response to the most pointed of questions? I wouldn't... That's why I don't see the point in another meeting, no matter how robust.

Nogg, all those questions are well-phrased I'd probably add:- 6. Inform current cash position of the company, together with monthly running costs. 7. Give detailed expenditure breakdown on how raised funds have been spent. 8. Clarify the position of Bligh and who he represents. But... IMV the trouble with just another meeting is that, no matter how pointed the questions put and no matter how forcefully they are put, ABH/Bligh could simply avoid and/or dissemble. Even if they provided so-called "evidence", how many would set store by that? The trouble is, when a CEO or BoD have - entirely through their own repeated actions and statements that proved to be at best wildly inaccurate - lost the entire trust of a fair number of investors, those investors are then quite sensibly never going to rely on assurances and evidence from the selfsame untrustworthy sources. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me... if you get my drift. Which is why I guess those pushing for an EGM see it (completely correctly IMV) as the only possible way of gaining any sort of independently audited and thus assured clarity on the state of play, past and present. If I thought an EGM was worth it at this stage, that'd be why and some form of independent and thorough due diligence on the company's books would be the only initial resolution I'd be pushing for. Deciding on what any further actions should subsequently be would depend entirely on the resuts of such an audit. AIMO, of course.

PS I should have included an Option 3, so here goes... or 3. They think it's all far too late in the day and thus pretty pointless. (I'd hate to have left myself out).

Doug, maybe, except I was after the response of the person proposing the question, and not assumption from others..Anyhow... WM, you are right and EGMs do have the potential to become a Pandora's box (kind of). So, PIs should not support an EGM if:- 1. They think that strategically it's a bad time to call an EGM (which is I think DougB's position), or 2. They're worried about the resolutions that might be included to be put to a mass shareholder vote (which I think may be yours?) 1 above is defensible, 2 less so, if one believes that fairly solicited and fairly counted majority opinion on any question asked (however unpalatable) should carry the day.

Doug, the entire issue was caused by my request for more detail on what this other shareholder group intended. That got answered by someone else taking a guess - informed or otherwise - at what that group intended. That's your cause for shenanigans, but I'm happy to agree to differ. Actually, isn't it all a bit moot? Say an EGM gets called to include a number of resolutions. With tongue in cheek, these for the sake of argument might include:- 1. The company's books to be gone over by a set of independent financial analysts 2. ABH to be recommended for the CEO of the Decade award and given a contract in perpetuity 3. ABH to be punched in the nads, thrown off the board instantly and replaced with Moss. PIs could then vote on each individual resolution as they like (and busily canvas for support on each resolution as they like). Presumably it's not an EGM in and of itself that people are getting aerated about, it's the resolutions that might be contained in such an EGM? But then again, all resolutions would be put to a shareholder vote... so where's the problem, unless people are nervous of shareholders as a whole being given an opportunity to formally express their wishes?

Doug, you're giving me too much Macchiavellian credit here. I have no idea how many factions, groups, Twitter groups, Facebook groups etc etc there are re CTAG PIs. The only one I knew of and have had communication from is the original SAG as headed up by Tim A. Since I'd not seen anything emanating from that source about testing appetite for an EGM, I thought I'd quite reasonably ask the question. Which got swiftly answered by K27M - it wasn't the SAG that I knew of, but an alternate group. So I then asked for more background, which WM decided to chip in on, mentioning Alon Moss in some detail for the first time and pointing out that ABH considered him damaging.. Which caused me to post:- "However, I don't see why the above course of action (calling an EGM) would require involvement from this Alon Moss guy? (Who may be a simply wonderful human being or not - I wouldn't know, because I don't have an earthly who he is). So yes, a bit more explanation/background from the alternative SAG would be most welcome to help people make a more informed decision..." Cue much shenanigans. I'm at an absolute loss to see the slightest contradiction on my part.

Since you have asked, here's a new thread so as not to bore others. I'm not quite sure what your issue is, however... My recent issue was with the unjustified mixing - deliberate or accidental - of the questions "should an EGM be called?" with "should an EGM be called that elects AM to the BoD?". The two obviously aren't the same - they're poles apart, as I'm sure you'd agree - and to merge the two did IMV very definitely cloud the question being posed. And then to throw fuel on that confusion, we had the whole "you're being played" thing... never mind. Do I personally believe that an EGM with any resolutions of any sort would deliver any value? No, but that's granted a very simplistic view based on my overall opinion on the state of CTAG. Could I be wrong? Absolutely yes. So if PIs want an EGM, they should go for it, include the resolutions they want and then vote accordingly on those as they see best. Presuming that I am wrong, I cannot fault K27M's logic throughout on there being no discernible downside to an EGM being called (with currently unspecified resolutions and with the whole AM thing being decoupled from this). Separately, I do completely agree that Bligh's role is both very odd and undoubtedly significant. K27M's latest post quotes ABH as saying (and this was very accurately reflected in the meeting notes as distributed):- "As you know Jamie does the investor relationship for Cloudtag Inc..." and "I believe that Jamie is very pivotal to such a meeting as he represents the initial largest private & institutional shareholders and I believe he has their views and interest too." The key word there is "initial", as you know, to which a reasoned response might be "And? So what?" There just has to be more - as yet unknown - than currently meets the eye, because it also seems clear to me that Bligh is in some way holding the reins here.

I'm touched by the concern, Dougb. Yes, my nutritional regime is just fine and dandy, but thanks for asking. I certainly make sure to avoid the shrooms that several posters on here seem to favour, being a fan as I am of reality, rather than pipedreams.

Blimey. A sort of consensus breaks out... and a red herring free one too. That's good. I was considering posting on the big differences between deliberate "smear campaigns" vs simple reaction to condescension and double standards, but hopefully no need now. It's a very fair (though I'd have thought obvious, but maybe not?) point that there is a very definite difference between being in favour of an EGM and being in favour of all resolutions proposed by an EGM. As WM has pointed out, shareholders do after all get to vote yea or nay as they wish on each and every resolution proposed, should an EGM come to pass.