Member Info for mathsprof

Just consider this:

EHGO deal would have given them funds of £1m by the AGM, and the first tranche of the bond would be forfeit as the make whole payment. After that there would have been 22 other monthly payments possible. Never mind about the trashed SP - lots of money to keep going for 2 years.

New arrangement gives them first tranche received less break fee, say £333k - £150k = £183k net. Then add in the new £300k, ie £483k total. (less fees???) Then scrub around for more money in July/August.

This compares badly with 3 EHGO tranches (£1m) - £500k forfeit = £500k net.

So why change the arrangements? I am more convinced that EHGO pulled the plug on their original arrangement, which I think is why they are still arguing abut the size of the break fee, and why I think Valirx were desperately trying to find a compromise arrangement with EHGO that was acceptable to both parties.

The death spiral may have worried EHGO more than Val, especially if they were hoping to sell all 213m shares quickly.

Uncanny - I love your comment to me and nomlungu's reply!

The main way to make any money from small bios is indeed to trade the ups and downs, and to be contrarian. Putting small bios "in the bottom drawer" is a recipe for disaster.

Doesn't stop me from being a LTH though - a bit of a two-way bet, I suppose.

year1970 - I don't know what makes you think I'm a pump and dumper. I never post in order to make money at the expense of others.

I probably misunderstood your original point about Bio directors, and the figures I quoted merely show what shares they own, mostly left over from an initial float I would imagine, or a token holding if a new director is appointed. Because dilution is the name of the game for small bios, the only important thing for LTHs is the amount of dilution and discount.

And that, sadly is where Val comes bottom of the pack at present.

And the difference is even more marked when you look at the current value of their shares:
SCLP £1m
SAR £500k
VAL £21k

"But go back to reality, you have been questioning the BOD of VAL not putting enough money into the company. I think you should do a quick research around like SCLP or SAR to see how much the BOD of those companies actually put their money in then you might have a different opinion. "

In fact SCLP directors hold around 5%, Sareum around 3% and Valirx around 1%. The difference with SCLP and SAR is that the dilution there has not been nearly so severe and so the directors as a result still hold larger percentages.

Is there a possibility that EHGO refused to fund the 2nd tranche last month because they had found it so hard to shift the 1st one? And the penalty clause only gave a maximum of £500k for the 3 tranches, which if the SP dropped below 0.26p would be in danger of them being out of pocket or having shares they couldn't sell.

This could explain all the last RNSs and Valirx's problem in re-negotiating a new finance deal - simply because EHGO were wanting better terms. I can see the possibility of this ending up in court.

So how much extra would the RNS cost to actually say what the investment was? One extra phrase???

Where will the horse's mouth be once it's bolted?

Interesting. They raised $16m last September. They seem to spend it faster than Valirx, then!

Is £140k fair value. Probably not - its a fire sale value, more likely, not a premium.

On the grapevine, or confirmed by either company?

It's the only unlisted investment Valirx owns, apart from Valiseek.

I think this is what they could have sold:

"The Group and the Company owns 5.5% (2017: 5.5%) (on a fully diluted basis) of the issued share capital of Morphogenesis Inc., a company incorporated in USA. Morphogenesis Inc. is a private company in which ValiRx Plc holds a minority interest."

So the MMs have raised the SP. They must anticipate buying - someone must feel this news is positive.

funding etc.

And lastly from me (I hope) on this thread is the fact that a GM only require 14 days notice rather than the 21 days for an AGM. So, if as I expect the GM is on the same day as the AGM, we will hear about it, with full details of those unanswered questions on finding etc, sometime next week.

I'm sorry Valju you've taken the trouble to post the details already on the Valirx website, which I have already seen. I hope it's useful for others.

I think Company law only says the outline of the resolutions is necessary in the published notice. The detail will presumably be circulated later (or at the meeting?). The problem with that is for those making postal/electronic votes in advance.

The only way forward for all concerned holders is to attend the meeting or appoint a proxy like yourself.

Thanks, Noise.

I'm now worried.

An authority given to the directors under section 551, and any resolution of the company renewing such an authority, must state “the maximum amount of shares” to be allotted pursuant to the authority.

You can't be asked to vote without numbers. What are they doing???

Broker never sends out AGM documentation (for any company), so I usually read it on company website before I decide whether to ask to register to vote etc.
Does documentation give any specifics about authority to issue new shares, or are we voting for a vague resolution which the RNS notice seems to imply?

I still can't see the AGM details on the Valirx website. Previously they have always given links to download documentation.

Why isn't it there? What is still yet undecided? Have they been posted out, as per last RNS? Looks very underhand to me.

Any one received this yet? It's not on the website yet. So . . .

Why is the new site showing 2 RNSs?

Actually Iceman, I think we are seeing the opposite.
The MMs have no interest in holding quantities of a very minor stock like VAL, and hence the volatility, and at times very large spread. They don't know which way sentiment may turn in the next half-hour.