Member Info for Muck165

Seeing a number of calls for investigations and legal actions, which is completely understandable. But for what?

As far as I can see we only have claims for financial naivety/incompetence from the BOD, which will give us no recourse. Things could I suppose be different if we’ve been deliberately misled. In that respect I think OF could only have enforced the loan security if an event of default had occurred; it would be useful to understand what that event was, precisely when it occurred, and contrast what the BOD were legally obliged to disclose and what (if anything) they actually disclosed. I suspect even then the BOD will refer to the forbearance clauses in the security docs and say, “yes, technically there was a default but we were working to secure forbearance from OF and made disclosures immediately once it was clear we’d be unsuccessful”.

I’m looking for positive angles here, just struggling to find any. Perhaps a white knight will come along

Administrators have been appointed because OF want their money back. It will be for the administrators to find a way to do that. DDDD want that to be a way that allows it to continue as a going concern, and will work with administrators in that regard. Hopefully they can - would be interesting to know what other finance solutions DDDD we’re working on. But ultimately, if that can’t be achieved then we’re looking at a sale of assets - ie the IP. If the IP goes, there really is no business I think. We, as shareholders, will just come last on the list of payees out of whatever the IP gets. That could be significant given the extent of the patent holdings, but far less so given it would be a distressed sale. Vultures will be circling…

Rocco - you just have to tell her straight. Doing otherwise will get you into more trouble, believe me.

From the OF site

Our success is founded upon enduring relationships within an industry we know intimately well. Clients and partners alike value our deep expertise, our drive to share success, and the service and flexibility we have provided to hundreds of life sciences and healthcare services companies across the globe.”

Really…

Debt kills businesses. I fervently hope that no investor here does anything silly - it is only money, as hard as the losses are to take.

There’s hope and there’s fear - I expect we are all experiencing both at the mo

That’s exactly the question I’ve been asking myself Bruce - why do the presentation….they wouldn’t have if they were in takeover talks and so serious problems with finance and the need for R8&9 seems most likely to me, sadly.

SEC filing lodged with this

https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=90423&ref=116789325&type=PDF&symbol=LBPS&companyName=4D+pharma+plc&formType=6-K&formDescription=Report+of+foreign+private+issuer+pursuant+to+Rule+13a-16+or+15d-16+under+the+Securities+Exchange+Act+of+1934&dateFiled=2022-06-24&CK=1830162#page5

Whatever - if my L2 is correct theyre trading and price is rising

It’s in auction

Well, it kind of makes sense. He does know the business after all. What’s more annoying is the half truths we are being fed via RNS.

I saw only one reason for this pre AGM presentation - a beg to shareholders to vote for R9 and achieve finance flexibility.

Wouldn’t surprise me if Mark Slade has got something to do with In App Video Services Ltd, an advertising agency set up in April 20 by Christy Davies and Suzy Slade. No web presence, nor does Christy mention it on his LinkedIn page, but it seems to be doing well enough for a new business and after the first year had £300k of cash, employing 4 people. I hope this isn’t some kind of continuation of the LSAI business, kept completely under the radar….whatever, the fact it was set up in April 20 by the guy supposedly running LSAI ops and finance, seemingly supported by Slade, suggests plans for LSAI and the CP may well have been in motion for longer than I thought.

This was in the placing docs

"The Executive Directors and the Proposed Directors recognise the importance of good governance arrangements. Following the changes detailed above, the Company intends to initiate a process to identify and appoint a second independent Non-Executive Director in addition to Nigel Burton, who is deemed independent, with a view to making an appointment as soon as reasonably practicable and ideally within six months following Admission, subject to finding an appropriate candidate with relevant experience. Further consideration will be given to appointing a third independent Non-Executive Director following the anniversary of completion of the Transaction and before the Company's 2022 annual general meeting."

I haven't seen that anything came of this, and certainly there is nothing to suggest a new NED before the AGM at the end of the month. Have I missed anything in this respect?

The more I look at this, the more I think you could be right…

Reality Mine is owned by Kennet, a PE house that took them over in 2015. PE houses don’t tend to invest for the long term, and in my experience look to exit in 3-5 years. Indeed, of the 18 current investee companies in the current Kennet portfolio, RM is their third oldest investment. They’re in the same general space and have the same Chairman as us, and a listing by RTO using a company with large deferred tax losses seems a good way for Kennet to get out.

Or we could both be way off the mark!

I didn’t think there was anything controversial in the resolutions so I’d be happy to support them if I voted. If I had a question it would be to better understand what Burton has actually done for us to warrant his fees and reappointment. I’m unlikely to vote, however, because my vote is likely to mean diddly to the outcome!

Yep - Christy Davies left us in Jan too so it wouldn’t surprise me at all if in reality nobody has actually been doing anything at LSAI since then, at least on day to day business.

For info, I Noticed DR updated his LinkedIn profile to reflect his being an “Adviser” for a company called EVO from Jan 22. The EVO site shows he will be their CFO starting in June.

https://evo-pm.com/about/who-we-are

It was interesting to see last year that Slade and Rae got re-appointed at the 2021 AGM with almost 100% support only to be given notice 3 days later! Feels like they were done over somehow so I wouldn’t be surprised if there is bad blood.

Any idea, anyone, why the relatively small recent Director sells were executed outside a trading venue? Seemed odd to me.

It does feel like a lid is being kept on the SP until Slade and Rae are out.

In that respect, both have 5 yr non transferable warrants to subscribe for 30m shares as long as long as the 20 day VWAP is over 0.3, or on a change of control - do they lose those warrants after 21/6?

So what do we think? Doesn’t look like anyone is coming into replace Rae and Slade and that focus is on securing “the right acquisition candidate” rather than on driving Verify, our last remaining business unit. Must be something in it for Wilkinson and Burton to stay on…?