Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
AHP, thank you for filling me in on the details. Although I've dropped in to read up on Worthington every now and then for several years, as you can tell I'm not a resident on this board. Just a peripatetic observer.
It seems on the face of it then, that the proposed dissolution wasn't principally about deep concerns. I wonder, though, how common it is for the registrars to propose striking off a company just for a delay of this length in filing a confirmation notice. Any idea? Or could there be deeper concerns that prompted them to act? In my experience these notices are one of the easier corporate documents to compile so the delay is unusual.
Spikey, as I said, once a company is struck off it no longer exists in any form so no claims can be made against it. Which is, of course the reason why fraudulent directors so regularly dissolve one company and start another. It appears that once that stage has been reached, it's all in the hands of the crown treasurer.
I presume this is why intention to strike off is gazetted and another poster found it to be relatively easy to get a stay of execution. Anyone in the situation you describe could apply for a stay to allow them to take action.
Sorry, browser crashed. Let's try again.
You seem to think everything would just carry on without having to worry about rules any more,
When a company is struck off:
It CEASES TO EXIST as any kind of legal entity. IMMEDIATELY. Any assets not previously returned to sharehilders go to the crown. The name is released for anyone else to register. Any attempt to carry on any kind of business whatsoever under the aegis of the old company is a criminal offence. However, the law allows shareholders who wish to recover any residual value and goodwill to apply for the company to be re-registered. They then have to apply to the crown treasurer and enter a plea for any further restitution.
And if this has nithing to do with protecting shareholders, but just bureaucratic overkill about a bit of trivial paperwork, what on Earth do you think 'compliance' is all for. Why did government lawyers spend thousands of hours writing the legislation behind all the companies acts and financial conduct rules?
Compliance means abiding by all the laws and regulations which have been put in place to ensure fair dealing for shareholders, customers, competitors and government revenue.
Whetstone has no customers of its own, so they can scarcely be said to be cheating them or competitors as there are, by definition, none of those either. So what's left? Have they been bilking the government on an unimaginable scale, ir are we left with just unreadable shares whose value can't be established, thereby causing difficulties for investors, existing and prospective?
I posted because others, presumably shareholders, were asking if being struck off meant the directors could just disappear with their assets. I just wanted to explain that legally they can't but actually recovering it won't necessarily be trivial,
I'd love to know why ypu think everyone should be so blasé about being struck off. And non-compliance is so trivial. Please enlighten me.
Zjanfranco, what in God's name do you think happens to a company which is struck off thee register. You seem to think everyone gju
As I see it the registrar would have started the process to strike off the company because he believed that was in the public interest. The company was being run in a way which failed to comply with the regulations, leaving current and potential investors at significantly more risk than they had reason to believe.
As far as the assets are concerned, they do indeed belong to the company's owners - the shareholders. It's just that companies aren't run directly by the shareholders, they delegate day-to-day management and custody of the assets to the directors. But that doesn't mean the directors can just walk off with those assets the moment a company is dissolved or struck off. That would be theft pure and simple.
Think of it as though you've been given temporary custody of a child. If a judge ends the custody order, that doesn't mean you're free to just abandon the child in the middle of a forest, or make off with him. You're legally obliged to return the child to it's lawful parents. If you don't, you're guilty of kidnapping or worse.
So if Whetstone is struck off, accountants will be able to show how much the assets should be worth and that value should be returned to shareholders. If it isn't, the directors could be charged with theft. If they've deliberately obfuscated the financial position or not kept proper accounts, so the value of the assets can't be determined, they're open to charges of false accounting or fraud. Of course, that's the ideal. The bad news is that the valuation of assets will depend on forensic accounting and any irregularities will cause auditing costs to escalate very quickly. The FCA and registrar may decide the cost of an investigation may be disproportionate to the loss sustained by shareholders, and so not justifiable in their eyes.
Autocorrect error: 'interpreted story' > 'Interpress story'.
Which, ironically is a perfect demonstration of how badly computers handle unfamiliar words.
Everyone posting that you can't find the Interpreted story when you search for "Frontera", you need to consider that the original text is in Cyrillic, and F is a letter that can be transliterated quite differently between Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Hence the page URL spelling "prontera". Search engines don't cope with this well, either from Google or the site's own search.
As for those who say it's very suspicious that the banner spells only "Frontera" in the Latin alphabet; it's precisely because of the transliteration problem that Western names are often written in Latin characters by people writing in other alphabets - very common in Arabic as well. Words like oil, strike, miners etc. can just be translated directly into their corresponding Georgian words and written in Cyrillic. But how would you 'translate' Frontera? You can't, you either have to transliterate each character individually to its phonetic equivalent, which causes problems if the Georgian sound for 'F' is different from English, or keep it in the Latin alphabet, as they have here. And Google Translate has no idea that the name 'Frontera' exists, and the nearest word of can find is 'Frontline'.
In short, while I can't confirm the truth of the story itself, there's nothing suspect in the way it's written or the fact that so,eone couldn't find it by searching. And it's scarcely a sufficiently prominent site for it to appear anywhere near the top of the results in Google.
"Yup IP address embedded in posts that’s correct. Ask any ethical hacker"
Nice threat to make to non-techies. But not quite true, is it. In fact a complete lie for anyone viewing the web pages. You'd need someone who goes a very long way beyond 'ethical' hacking to be able to either view server logs and match a post to its corresponding log entry, or read what a user has submitted from their own device.
Drac, I did mention that the entire cohort apparently entered the trial with compromised immune systems due to previous treatment but that reminds me there's one other potential bonus. Identification of patients expected to be most likely to benefit needs just a very simple blood test, so targeting could be quite tight. However, that doesn't alter the fact that, while it seems every participant should qualify for treatment if they presented as 'real-world' cases in consultants' waiting rooms, only two have shown any change in their cancers, and no reduction in their primaries.
Good luck to all investors and it's excellent from a medical viewpoint that, although money from everyday trades doen't directly benefit the company, so many seem willing to place serious a ounts of their money on new share issues or an IPO that could save many, many lives. Rather more beneficial than a fiver in a collecting box. I sincerely hope this does succeed with the side-effects that you all get returns in multiples. I'm not at all cynical about the need for investment in companies like this one, just concerned that people may be led to invest long before they can be as sure of success as they think they have.
PM, that pretty much sums it up, but I'd love to know why. For most of my career I was a biologist, and in any of the sciences one HAS to accept factual evidence, no matter which way it points. I'm proud to say that in my time I've proven more than one or two long-standing beliefs to be wrong. I'm equally proud that that includes having proven myself wrong a couple of times.
So when I see people post statements like "as investors we must support our company", "I'm already invested so I already know everything I want to" or "I never listen to detractors, I've made up my mind", I wonder how, when they're here to make money, they wouldn't even want to know if someone had incontrovertible proof that the company they'd invested in was utterly fraudulent and they were in danger of losing all their money. I should have thought basic survival instinct would argue against that. But I was most surprised by the sheer invective, gratuitous insults and ad hominem attacks people use when all they need to say is "sorry, I don't agree".
Good grief, OneandOnly1, are you honestly still in this???
For the benefit of anyone who doesn't go back that far, it must have been nearly two years ago when this company under its previous name and ticker MSG was at about 0.5p. Some really basic research i.e. just reading the actual accounts at Companies House and the SEC, looking at the background of management, past achievements and the like showed the company and its associates were completely incapable of bringing about all their fabulous claims. I was one of a couple of people trying to point this out but we were constantly shouted down by rampers, including OneandOnly1. A few months later, with the price at 0.1p there were still posts claiming it would be "1.5p on news".
Then the name change and since then it's lost another 90% but OneandOnly1 is still ramping away "10 bag on news". But even if it did, it would still be only a tiny fraction of what he and many others invested at.
Is anyone still claiming it is the "world's leading Blockchain company" as they did when it had never launched any products, had no programmers (or indeed employees of any kind) and went from one partnership to another, always with companies with even worse trading histories. What's so depressing is that the investigation we did was only the most basic I'd do before investing any of my money, and I never even had to leave my bed. We never even posted opinion, just hard facts from the company's own financial accounts, showing a completely different situation from their unvetted publicity material. Yet we were sworn at, reported to LSE, and called some pretty awful things just because we didn't agree with some others.
I'd like to say that with the share price well below 1% of what many investors paid, at least we had the last laugh. But there must be real, living people here who've lost money because a BOD spun fantasies so they could make some money for themselves and that's no laughing matter.
I've always been intrigued by the rationale of people on these boards who say this type of thing; to quote one specifically " I never read posts by anyone who isn't invested, I have no interest in their opinions". I can't help thinking that if a number of people posted messages saying that they weren't investing because the company is fraudulent or hopelessly insolvent, and give information from the company's own accounts or other reliable news sources that amounts to irrefutable proof, at what point would those investors start to change their opinion?
One thing that's quite consistent and telling is there always seems to be a point when investors stop talking about the "company's performance" and "the board decided" and say "our performance" and "we decided". Surely such emotional attachment isn't good for investment decisions. Shouldn't everyone who's aim is to make a good return maintain a sceptical neutrality or detachment, and be prepared to sell at any moment rather than hold through some sense of involvement? The level of hostility and personal attacks launched against anyone giving a contrary opinion, even when supported by evidence is something I found very startling.
Typo Correction: "come up wrsearchers in one company"
comparison I was trying to make was in the pure research capacity between one thousand companies with five researchers each and one company with five thousand researchers, at that initial thinking stage where it was just a question of imaginative and creative application of brain power as per Watson and Crick, for example, rather than the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to develop and progress through trials.
@JohnTay
It's a relief to see a pharmacological company bulletin board where several people understand trial protocols, although on going back it's alarming to find that one appears to be looking to report only trials whose results exceed particular positive criteria. I believed in Ben Goldacre's campaign for ALL trials to be publicly listed and given equal prominence when he was still in primary school if that time scale makes sense! It's just that, off the top of my head he's the obvious person to quote on this matter.
What I'm suggesting is that there are some very big pharma companies introducing major new drug lines looking at tackling new etiologies but even they are having difficulty getting NICE and FDA acceptance when, for one thing they have headroom to reduce prices and for another they can focus on therapies showing the clearest advantages over existing regimens.
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion as to whether companies like AGY are in a position to compete? The fact that's so often overlooked is that in science, one thousand companies working with five researchers each are applying the same brain power and have a similar potential to come up wresearchers in one company. Obviously the chances in the latter company for progressing from pure idea to marketed product are substantially higher but there are a good few companies out there surviving by selling basic ideas on for further development.
I'd only picked up on dupilumab because I'd been on an early trial. After a lifetime of ability to work being badly affected by eczema until I eventually found a consultant willing to keep me on ciclosporin for longer periods without alternating with methotrexate (which barely worked at all) it was the first real alternative to immunosuppression, although admittedly it wasn't as effective. I'm sure that further research down the monoclonal line will pay real dividends. Yes, it cost several times as much, and potentially removed any effects on lifespan, but in my particular case and I'm sure that of many others, the cost could well have been covered by the increased productivity and tax I'd pay because I didn't have to take breaks from work. Field biology and severe eczema are not the most compatible situations!
Must apologise for misspelling this drug's name when I first wrote the subject line. Autocorrect must have picked it up somewhere off this web page but it's so humiliating given I've been on it.
Especially good luck investing in these companies. It's vital that people do so but as someone whose origin and heart still lie firmly with pure science, truth in reporting is even more important given that we're dealing not just with money but people's lives.
Not an investor and only just came across the reference so apologies for belated response but was fortunate enough to get a place on a phase III UK Dupilumab trial a while ago largely because my specialist happened to know the man in charge. Results vary but in my case it would mean not having to takme continuous cyclosporin immunosuppression, with the resulting kidney damage. Did very well on the trial which was double-blind, of course, but when they finished and were able to sit around the table, open envelopes and check IDs against treatment regimens they found I was not only on the real treatment but I was also on the anticipated optimal dose. As mentioned, price was by and large NICE's section. I'm a biologist so understand these reports rather well. Unfortunately effectiveness didn't scale downwards well with dosage. That is, if dosage is reduced 10%, effectiveness reduction is appreciably worse. Annual cost of £32,000 or even up to twice that ring a bell and initial approval had involved substantive discussions and price reductions, so even that status wasn't well secured. And trials were still based on continuing treatment with topical corticosteroids (ointments which do themselves often have unpleasant side effects when used for years. Perhaps the saddest aspect other than investors' finances is that it could have pioneered the use of monoclonal antibodies for a far wider range of much more common conditions instead of just one or two which nobody had heard about. For severe eczema it was certainly a potentially life-changing treatment.
At 09:32 on wednesday you stated:
"But this will go back up later this afternoon, I guarantee"
Thank you so much for giving us your personal guarantee, I'm sure there'll be many of us wanting to take you up on your generous offer. At the time you posted the price was about GBP 0.22 so I'll let you off the 14p by which it had already fallen, so I'll just ask you to cover the loss on 12,000 shares @ 5p per share = GBP 600. Send me a personal message and I'll send you my details. Payment by cheque or PayPal would probably be easiest.
I do wish many more people would offer fellow investors their personal guarantees on their price predictions; it would make investing so much more reassuring.
All that's been happening is that some of us, instead of just taking an RNS or free news sheet at face value, have compared them with actual events and information on the company's situation. It was immediately obvious that MSG had no ability or resources to carry out the block-chain development that was proposed; nor, for that matter, could Black Cactus. And that Dr. Para was not exactly the person he was described as in some of the publicity. Wherever we looked we found facts - proven facts, not claims or suppositions, that simply didn't back up the claims being made that MSG would soon be making a fortune for its shareholders. It was all available in the public domain for anyone prepared to put some time and intelligence into finding and collating it.
Canny, there are more sources of information than RNSs. Go back to the research I posted before Christmas. Their own annual accounts submitted to Companies House stated they had one employee, whose salary worked out at about �23,000. Less than we paid junior programmers with virtually no experience. The same situation applied to the Black Cactus submissions to the SEC that I went through. It just seems that all the investors who keep quoting 'DYOR' to each other only ever read publicity sheets.
But if Black Cactus have had all these fantastic, market-leading block-chain apps for all this time, why didn't they just tell us and realise their fantastic 'real' share value years ago. Any 'first mover' advantage was lost anything up to a decade ago when all the other uses for block-chains were proposed and realised years ago. You also make the new-investor's mistake of thinking there is automatically an inherent value in any solution simply because it uses block-chain technology. Apart from the obvious current problems everyone is trying to solve - lack.of scalability due to its slow speed and unsustainable power requirements, it's not some miraculous deus ex machina, it's just another distributed database whose properties can be reproduced with standard products such as SQL and Oracle. Having used both, but mainly SQL since the early '80s I've not yet encountered something we couldn't do. None of these companies should be valued any differently from any other software developer with a similar size, customer base, capability, history and so on.
Oneandonly1. you still haven't delved back into your DB experience to explain the derivation of Miccrosofts's acronym 'SEQUEL'.