Member Info for knee

Bigdish loan and interest is approx. �210k, overheads including legal costs and directors fees are estimated at �100k. There may be other costs involved in winding up a company or trying to relist it. Thus liabilities look like �300-325k ish. There may be a few cents in the safe but nothing to write home about. There are options on the exited Italian assets which may be worth something in a few years time but at present are worthless or at an option value. So the hole looks like �325k. The BOD have told us nothing since the delisting of their ideas , some habits never change. It may be possible to get all payables to take a haircut on their debts if there is a hope of getting a future payment. If the directors do not write off 50% of their payable then I think shareholders would be very aggrieved yet again. If Bigdish can be convinced to take 50% as well it will be 65-70% of the total payables agreeing to a haircut. There may be a route to force all creditors to accept the majority vote of creditors under Australian law. That gets the amount down to manageable levels if there is a plan for the phoenix to rise.

Is legal action being taken against directors and/or broker? If so in UK and/ or Australia? Is there a shareholders action group formed?

Has anyone heard from the directors on what they are doing or planning to do? Given they no longer have to send out any RNSs how are they going to communicate with shareholders? Nothing on the website. Surely the shareholders can get them to open up now there are no listing rules to follow.

If the Chairman is giving up administrative oversight duties to the new NED then is the Chairman on the way out? This does not seem like good corporate governance.

The present suspension/delisted is a direct result of not having an appointed NOMAD. NYO announced it was a cash shell months ago so only has 6 months from that date to do a RTO or it gets delisted. The clock is ticking. The BOD should always be accountable for their actions and inactions. I hope they are paying you well for your blind faith in them.

Why would you support the current BoD? They have done nothing to help existing shareholders. They do not even update shareholders.

I expect BOD to give themselves options on the "success" of the RTO just to really p*** off investors. PH will have agreed a huge, and unsubstantiated, fee for the RTO with the BOD. Of course non of these will go to shareholders for approval. No wonder AIM gets a bad reputation for allowing joke companies, poor quality BOD and brokers that would never undersell Shylock.

Given the RNS which clearly stated when the current NOMAD would resign and the deadline for appointing another, now passed, it suggests that the company now should no longer fulfil the AIM requirements and thus be delisted. The RNS was a forward looking statement and as such should be updated to keep investors in the picture. It may be sensible for investors to contact the AIM team and try to get them to take action against the company and its advisers. No news is said to be good news. However, in this case no news is a function of a poor BOD and broker.

A deadline has passed but no update to shareholders by the BOD. At least the BOD never worry about upsetting the shareholders or being helpful. Good to know that corporate governance is still ignored by some AIM companies and their brokers.

Complex......only the weak hide behind complexity. It is simple : Listen to shareholders, do not abuse shareholders and be consistent. It is not a great deal to ask. Shareholders were given the chance to vote on the first PH equity raise , PH's excessive fees, options and related matters. Shareholders overwhelmingly voted against PH's resolutions. So the BOD then announced a far worse deal with PH with no shareholder vote. So much for complexity! Hopefully the new institutional shareholders will expect to be treated better than the existing PIs. Get the RTO done.......not very complex, then sack the hopeless BOD .........simple, sack PH and appoint a respected broker.............simple.

If the RTO is that advanced then the directors must know about it so it should be disclosed via RNS? Stocks that are liked by institutional investors are often unlikely to appeal to PIs, thus the current shareholders are again unlikely to be happy. However if institutional investors are involved they must kick out the existing BOD as they have ignored existing shareholders wishes and clearly are in PH's pocket. However existing shareholders must shoulder some of the blame by not calling a general meeting to stop PH and the BOD.

130 mill is more than 3% and should have been disclosed. If you want to call an egm I suggest you speak to the company and ask for direction. At the same time speak to Mitchell Tarr who organised the last EGM. Someone must know his contact details. JMK is always helpful if you have questions.

Latino You are welcome to believe whatever you consider to be correct. For example if you really think shareholders have been looked after properly by the directors then fine. It is your opinion and no one will say that you are not allowed an opinion. I email JMK and he is not required to be so confidential on matters that do not relate to his tenure as a director. He is happy to chat with shareholders.

I notice it took the directors a week to publish the last TR1. The TR1 from JMK also took days for them to RNS. Surely these should have been promptly reported to maintain a fair market?

It depends if the shareholders can be bothered to fight or just roll over and die like PH and the directors expect them to do. Angry shareholders should write to Aussie Registrar of Companies/ASX to complain of poor governance and try to get the directors banned from being directors. A letter to FCA to complain on PH may not achieve much but it may upset PH. Where is TW when he is really needed???

Shareholders are wiped out in this proposed deal. Better to sod the directors and PH rather than allow them to rape the shareholders with impunity.

5% of issued shareholders are needed to call an EGM. With the new declared 3.99% shareholder it should be easy to get to 5%. The EGM needs to address the various things that shareholders want changed such as less dilution, more transparency, change directors , etc. The EGM needs to be called very soon to put pressure on PH to renegotiate the terms of their dreadful deal, and pressure on the directors to stop supporting PH and support the shareholders.

I am informed that JMK made an offer to fund £100k , not the £550k that PH have agreed to, at a much higher price than PH. The board told JMK that they needed £75k to cover costs and £100k to be comfortable ahead of the RTO.JMK also introduced the board to the nomad referred to in the RNS as the Board could not obtain a nomad. A ready to go RTO with 75% funding in place was also offer to NYO. This would have been much less dilutive to shareholders. PH are obviously looking after the current board to allow shareholders to be so abused.

Can shareholders call an EGM before the Board gift the company to PH? That may give shareholders some say in the matter rather than being ignored. PH will not offer new shares to existing shareholders as they hate them.

I heard that when PH did the last deal at 0.02p that there was another offer of funding 25% higher. The Board, except JM-K, voted for PH, that is why he resigned although he never confirmed this. It looks as though the Board is consistent as supporting PH in face of better offers. It is odd that the Board can gift the company to PH without a shareholders vote whereas last time shareholders voted against all PH related resolutions at the EGM. The Board have ignored shareholders this time as they dared to go against the Board's recommendations just a few weeks ago. Corporate governance and respect for shareholders hits a new low. Next thing will be Beaumont Cornish being appointed on £100k a year. TW would be pleased.......