Member Info for PLASTICMAC

Thanks for the info' Freetimetrader. Unfortunately a lot of people aren't recognising the 'elephant in the room' which is that for P140 to attract the big money the company has to provide evidence that it works through a successful Stage 3 trial. To my mind we have pretty much wasted the last 7 years by having Avion control the pace of progress on this. Granted we've now come up with a clever analytical tool that can identify super responders in lupus and potentially other auto immune diseases, but we need to be realistic as to what value 'big pharma' will put on that, especially since the whole USA market appears to belong to Avion.

Has anyone estimated what percentage of total lupus sufferers are super responders? This would be a key factor in how successful P140 might be. Also, the Avion deal appears to be open ended and gives Avion the right to benefit from future applications of P140 on other auto immune diseases.(exclusively for the USA) Strange that they haven't managed to get a stage 3 trial off the ground in 6 years! Time for Immupharma to start arguing that the contract has been frustrated and is no longer valid.

Good work Kevin. Could you send it to me as a PDF attachment that I can forward to the Government minister. I'm not sure whether she can do anything before Monday, as it appears the Takeover Panel have fully covered their backsides on this one.

The Takeover panel have come back to me and said that they complied with their code rules in allowing a clause 9 waiver, but under their rules it was only allowable because the company's independent financial advisor Cavendish Capital Markets had stated that it was in the best interests of independent shareholders and the Company to do so. So, do we have a case against Cavendish for allowing Harwood a clause 9 vote?(in which Lombard Odier and Griffiths are treated as independent!).

It's mca for the start of the address. Thanks in anticipation.

Hi KJM100K,

Yes, I'd like to see the reply from Angela please. Please send to mcaleer.james@sky.com

As an update on my latest activities, I've now made 3 requests to the Takeover Panel to change their minds on the clause 9 vote granted to Harwood. Still waiting for a reply.

On the request for Government intervention I'm told that my letter requesting assistance will be delivered to the appropriate minister tonight.

I've got 411,000.

With a week to go to the meeting date these are the 'last acts of desperation' that I plan to take:-

1. Through my long standing labour MP contact the relevant government minister to try and influence the Takeover Panel on their decision to allow Harwood a clause 9 waiver vote.

2. Through the same minister get confirmation that alternative sources of finance are available through the government Growth Guarantee Scheme.

3. Take legal advice on the chances of stopping the meeting and/or putting the frighteners into Lombard Odier and Griffiths for supporting Harwood when in theory they should be wiped put as well by the proposals.

4. Investigate if we can get 2 independent directors appointed to the Board which Harwood controls (and will therefore vote to put company into Administration).

It's not over until it's over!

Thanks Platoh, but I've already sent one to him at that company which didn't get through. I'll try again to their general enquiries address.

Can anyone find out the contact details for Jonathan Martin Glenn, the former chairman; I've tried but failed. As a last ' clutching at straws' exercise I'd like to know the contact details for any company that showed interest in purchasing the company during the strategic review.

All good work guys but we are losing focus. It's all about the vote and how we get the maximum number of retail shareholders to realize that the proposals wipe out their investment with no opportunity to recover it in the future. They have to VOTE BY 16TH DECEMBER FOR PROXY VOTERS. What is the best online method of reaching out to these people?

Harwood will have done their sums on the voting and besides the 52% institutional investors ( Harwood will have done deals for the others support) they may have contacted retail investors owning 1M + shares to solicit their support. Remember, they only need 75% of votes cast at the meeting, so if we stick with the 52% institutional voters support for Harwood and we only get a 35% turnout from the 48% retail investors they get to a 75% count of votes counted at the meeting. If we get a 40% turnout they only get to 73%. To beat them on the clause 9 waiver where they only need 50% but Harwood's 22% can't be included we need to get to 65% of retail investors voting no to block the proposal. We can ask for a copy of the detailed shareholders list at the Leeds registered office and start making phone calls! Any volunteers?

The irrevocable undertakings of Lombard Odier and Richard Griffiths to support the proposals (21% of total shares) says it all. They are being treated as independent shareholders just like us and should in theory be wiped out just like us but their support for Haywood guarantees them a nice chunk of the new shares as soon as it goes private. I'll be writing to the Takeover Panel on this subject tomorrow.

As part of the RNS/notification Harwood stated that they have agreement for their proposals from a further 20%+ in Griffiths/Lombard Odier which presumably means they've done a secret deal with Harwood. I believe we need a corporate legal expert to look at the proposals and the associated voting rules. The Clause 9 waiver is being proposed as an ordinary resolution requiring only a 50% vote in favour at the meeting to pass. Harwood won't be allowed to vote on this. As I see it the biggest danger to us failing to stop Harwood is the general apathy of retail investors in not bothering to action a proxy vote because they don't think their vote will make a difference. How can we communicate the importance of voting to people that I suspect don't get involved with share chats?

If we do manage to prevent the 75% required approval it's almost certain that rather than agree a more acceptable dilution number Harwood will quickly put the company into Administration and hope to buy it on the cheap anyway. I agree that the $17.5M proposed loan is way over the top and without having seen the cashflow forecasts driving the loan justification would speculate that $3M would get us back on the rails and restore confidence for the continuation of the Midcap line of credit. It's difficult to have any confidence in a Board clearly dominated by Harwood and fully supportive of retail shareholders being wiped out but maybe our rejection of the proposals would change their minds. We could do with another interested party appearing on the scene; does anyone know who we held discussions with when the strategic review put up the 'for sale' sign?

It might be worth adding up the number of shares owned by contributors to this board who would be willing to vote against the resolutions. I own 411,000.

I think we need to take legal advice on this quickly. It makes no sense to vote for a wipe out of our share value without a definitive offer of compensation.

Your naivety is touching. I'm sure you would have given Dr Shipman the benefit of the doubt until the very end!

I stick to my opinion. Are you related to any of the previous management team?

I think the stock/cost of sales manipulation was deliberate and has gone on for a number of years , driven by bonus objectives. and a desire to paint a rosy picture of the company's gross margin performance. I voted against the Chairman, CEO and CFO's re-election at this years AGM because their incompetent actions had needlessly wrecked the share price. Today's announcement suggests that the timing of the 'strategic review' was more a last act of desperation before the $3.1M hole was discovered. It beggars belief that our auditors failed to find it!