Member Info for HeidHoncho

PAD, I may have assumed incorrectly, but your ethos of “need to look forwards, not backwards” intimates that you have only recently (6 months or less) become an investor in VAL.

Consequently, the potential loss to you were the resolutions not be passed, and the company then perhaps has to fold, would be significant.

However, the long time investors, who have been invested for many years, and gone through numerous significant unnecessary dilutions, have little left to lose (likely already 95% or so down), so their desire to support the resolutions are considerably lower as they only have a potential loss of less than 5% were the company to fold.

Unlikely that those who have suffered such an unnecessary level of dilution in the past will care to forget that, and likely choose to vote against the resolutions as they have little to lose in doing so.

Unfortunate for those who have only relatively recently become investors in VAL, as they face losing a significantly larger further percentage of their investment were the company to fold, but that’s the way that the cookie crumbles I’m afraid.

Sorry, but with all the posts today about a duplicitous article from some no mark author I may have missed anyone posting about the charter of the Skandi Hera.

It has been chartered for, amongst other things, some work class ROV work.

Does anyone have any substantiated data on what work scope the vessel has been chartered to conduct ?

The BoD must realise that with the value reduction in the SP that they have been party to over the years, which has been accelerated in an exponential manner over the last 24 months, would ensure that they would not get these resolutions voted through.

Especially so being that this time around they have no large shareholders that they have “rewarded” with beneficial share placements, that they can guarantee voting in their favour on this occasion.

That being so, and if we accept that they are not oblivious to this likelihood, one has to question whether this situation has not been consciously stage managed.

Were that to be the case, and the resolutions not being passed and the company then having to fold, who would benefit most from that ?

Should any subject require investigated prior to the EGM I would suggest that the subject would be who owns the rights to the compounds were the company to fold.

And if those rights remained with the company, I would suggest that very close attention be paid going forward as to who the administrators/liquidators sell those rights to.

All IMHO obviously.

For clarity, my vote to the proposed resolutions will be no, no, and no.

Will someone please take that spade off of iceman, and give him a hand out of that hole he has been digging.

Many thanks.

bp, I posted the patent application link earlier today, and Fredd and I conversed on it.

You just need to read back through the posts.

Fredd, unfortunately that is all that it is, merely an opinion based on 5 minutes of research.

I am not experienced in Patents, or IP ownership, just taken a logical viewpoint on the evidence reviewed.

Thank you for your comments, but it should be noted that my opinions are far from being an authoritative review/response.

In this particular case the Patent was applied for by Cancer Research Technology Limited, whose parent company is CRUK.

The relationship to VAL would exist in what ever agreement is currently in place between CRUK and VAL regarding the development and commercialisation of the compound in question.

So, although George is identified as one of the numerous co-inventors the patent is in the name of a subsidiary company to CRUK, so ultimately any threat proven in the WhatsApp correspondence that is being bandied about on here is a hollow threat, as George doesn’t own the IP.

At least, that’s how it reads in my humble opinion.

For example.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10400008.PN.&OS=PN/10400008&RS=PN/10400008

Surely it is easy to confirm who owns the IP.

Wouldn’t it just take a check on which entity’s name is on the Patent for each compound.

And I would assume that Patent information is in the Public Domain.

Just a thought.

Given that the basis for your question seems to relate to high temperatures, would any concern you have not be prevalent in ANY high temperature well ?

i.e. it is not Lancaster centric, so I can but assume you are concerned whether this is an issue in any of Hurricane’s competitors wells, and will be advising each of their BB’s accordingly ?

Noise, it would appear that you posted whilst I was typing.

Should we be concerned that VAL will no longer own the IP for/of 401, or did VAL not own the IP for/of 401 whilst it was in the ValiSeek umbrella ?

If we (VAL) previously did indeed own the IP of 401 should it be of concern that going forward it will no longer be under our ownership, as all that we will now have (potentially, as the RNS was short on the specifics, and clarity) is a percentage (similarly, no specifics in the RNS of what percentage) holding in a company that owns the IP.

As shareholders of VAL we, in essence, also individually held a percentage in the IP of 401, and we will no longer hold that ownership, we will now only have an essential individual percentage of a company that has a percentage of a company that now holds the IP.

Perhaps if the VAL BoD had better expressed the full detail of the transaction, and how this was going to be more beneficial to VAL shareholders than any other option for monetisation, then perhaps we would have less concern of giving away ownership of a previously owned asset to a company that is currently worthless given that it was only established at the end of 2019, especially so as there was no detail of any current transactional benefit in doing so.

Sorry to feel that way, but whenever a transaction is lacking in any definitive detail there generally is a reason for such vagueness, and it gives every reason to be perceived to be a red flag.

I’m sure that I’m not the only one thinking this, but maybe some are not willing to verbalise it.

IMHO

kids playground in here.

Now we have got a little kid envious of the more popular (recommend up ticks) kids in the playground, and wanting the spotlight more on them, as they thirst to be recognised.

This is the sort of kid that goes about pulling girls pigtails and running away, such is their need for attention and recognition, and that is the only way that they will get noticed as no one has any respect for them.

These are the sort of kids that grow up to attain infamy of sorts, when in later life you see their faces plastered all over the evening news for having committed some heinous cowardly crime/attack.

Whether it is caused by a lack of success in their own lives, or whether it is a more deep rooted reaction to not being loved as a child, who knows.

The bottom, and undeniable, fact is that this is being played out outside of our control, so ultimately what will be will be, so no reason to get stressed out by it.

Given that the share has been delisted for over a year, with no way currently available for us to recover any of our investment, I would suggest that the vast majority have already written their investment off, so there is no further down side irrelevant of what the final result will be, there is however a glimmer of a potential benefit should things pan out okay.

Conversely, the only people who should continue to have any concern over the outcome, and feel the need to continue to promote the negative so as to at least make them feel a little better meanwhile, would be the exposed to unquantifiable losses were the ultimate outcome to be in any way positive, I would imagine.

A famous person once said, “stupid is, as stupid does”.

All IMHO you understand.

I feel that the lost 600k isn’t the primary issue here, as that can be accommodated, what is more pertinent IMHO is through the BoD stupidly believing that they had the financing in the bag they then took their foot of the pedal with regards to ensuring that they had the necessary funds in place for the February deadline.

There is now seriously limited time available (it doesn’t just happen overnight, it takes many weeks, nay months) to secure the millions of funding required to make the February deadline, as I would anticipate that failure to do so within the prescribed timeline would kick in a clause that would equate to the asset being lost (but to be fair, I haven’t as yet fully researched the effect of failure to have the funds in place by the deadline).

I also struggle to believe that the risk of pulling off a dupe like this, especially so given the relatively small sum involved, would have been worth it, if indeed all that was to be the ultimate goal was to sucker a paltry 600k out of LEK.

However, were the ultimate goal to have been a delaying/distracting tactic, such that time ran out by the deadline to secure the funds necessary by the deadline, and the potential existed for the asset to be lost, then the risk/reward profile improves significantly.

From a smoking gun point of view, it is perhaps less important identifying who perpetrated the fraud, and greater emphasis should be given to identify which party had, or could ultimately have, benefited the most were the asset to be lost to LEK.

Isn’t one of the primary issues to be identified when investigating a crime, is the identity of those who had the most to gain from the crime that was per-restated.

Perhaps this is something worthy of further consideration/postulation, or perhaps it is just the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist .... lmao

Aye, this board is full of divies, apparently !

If and when dividends would be paid is many years down the road, at least 5 years IMHO.

Other than requesting the authority to issue the warrants (as insufficient authority exists at the moment), what other issues do we anticipate the BoD requesting us to vote at during this EGM ?

Further reason to believe an EGM is to be called very soon is the wording used in the RNS (which without checking) went something like “upcoming general meeting”.
Given that the AGM is not due till mid year the utilisation of “upcoming” indicates that the “general meeting” detailed in the RNS will be “extraordinary”, and not “annual”.

I anticipate the BoD requesting authority to consolidate (yet again), and to have authority to raise up to a further 100% of the then shares in issue.

Obviously they will issue fluff about there being no intention to then issue that many shares, but merely to be given the flexibility to do so should conditions exist that require them to do so.

They will probably also state that the authority is required so that they can offer current shareholders the opportunity to participate in a Rights Issue, but given that they promised that the last time they requested the authority, and flat out failed to meet that commitment, one would postulate “once bitten, twice shy”.
And do you for one moment believe that the same level (one for one, and at a zero premium) of warrants would accompany such an RI, as that which was “gifted” to those participating in the recent placing, would occur ?

What else, or alternative, does anyone think will be requested to be voted at during the EGM ?

Addendum, I also meant £0.001 (or 0.1p), obviously

“trees”, not “tress”

bp82, why do you believe “No one in their right mind would sell at such prices” ?

Because of the myriad of warrants issued (1 warrant for each placing share) that were “gifted” in the most recent placing, it essentially means that those who participated have absolutely zero exposure, as they will recoup all of their capital, but yet still have the risk free option of purchasing those shares back at that self same issue price to profit yet further should the sp rise higher than 0.001p at any point in time over the next 3 years.

And they say that money doesn’t grow on tress ...... pffffttttttt

IMHO

Interesting spelling of “Killkenny”.

Such a spelling (double “ll” rather than a single “l”) would make him easy to be searched for online.

Just saying.