Member Info for rhd1

Wow, how can anybody say that GM is not supported by the Company when the RNS actually states that the other directors do not support the group of 9 who sent the letter calling for them to be removed? Is that not a clear endorsement and support for both directors by the Valirx board? Just in case I have missed it, Is there any other evidence saying how bad they are or is it just the personal opinion of the more angry people here.
Regarding the missed deal in Paris etc, was this not the one that was rubbished by this very b board a few years ago as it was not considered anywhere near good enough at the time?
And the clamour for Ms Dilley who appears to be a replacement put forward by the 9 people group, always assuming that the resolution succeeds and GM is removed. What board level experience does she have, she has apparently told one of the 9 letter group why she thinks she would be able to do the job but is she what Val wants or needs, or if it came to it, would we want to follow the normal process, advertise and select the best person for the job.
Roll on the votes so that we can either go forward or fold, and just so you know I will be voting a resounding yes to all three resolutions in the first vote and categorically no on the second vote if it goes to it. Finally, to the positive posters, well done
for putting your views across despite the bully boy tactics, bad language and insults from a small minority on here. I am sure that I will now attract some of it but there we are, not bothered and a good example of social media at its best!

Equally Stumbler there will be an opposing view that if the two directors look as if they are going , the big players might not want to take it on without them and their knowledge. We are full circle again, in that many shareholders and even some of the 9 in the letter group recognise that something is better than nothing and will now vote yes.

Clearly not or they would have known that there is no requisition vote tabled as yet. Just as well some people are keeping up with what's going on and already voted.

Hi SL,
i just wanted to note that the action group are a voice, but only one group of individuals in contact along with many others either individually or collectively. Putting the replies to personal emails aside, the RNS is the only way that the board can legitimately communicate with all shareholders without getting into the legal minefield. This particular action group have been left with just the same individual member votes as everybody else for the first vote which is right and proper, it's not a refusal to communicate from the board but simply the way it works.
Whether we will ever see the director vote will rely on the first vote, if it goes down, then admin as already been said, with any funds paying the administrators, if passes then a number of options open to the board and the shareholders at that point and which will be interesting particularly if market confidence is raised in some way.
I am still buying, not because I want to raise my voting rights but because I think news may well be on the way when we get past this hurdle, but each to their own and doubt I will get much agreement here but no matter. It would be boring if we all agreed.

Personally I would have thought that the only proper communication would have been from the group outlining their concerns as they did and a formal response as we now have. Is that not as per company law as they are on a very difficult road to ensure that their legal liability to all shareholders in or outside of the group are carefully managed. Just imagine if a side deal was done with any group outside of the due process. The RNS resolutions/ vote is the only way to resolve it.

Pad,
Good questions but the action group are so focussed on destroying the two directors they will not see that your questions should have been asked before they took the action they did. I think they know that the narrow and ill thought out resolution has finished Valirx and no fresh finance or development will emerge now. I will give them the benefit of doubt and perhaps they thought it would force the board to look at alternatives but was never going to happen while they e painted them into such a tight corner. The Board are not without fault and they did not estimate the true cost of the trials correctly. Had they done so and raised more finance previously instead of the dribs and drabs that enabled confidence to erode things might have been different. This week should see one way or the other I imagine but a sad time for cancer research.

Fred,
Perhaps it is the way I read your post, but but it does appear to me you think they only have to consider your groups views. They have a legal duty to consider and respond to all proposals put forward, this does of course include your groups suggestions and opinions as well as the many others who have been in contact with theBoD. The legal parameters are in place for just this sort of situation where there are many different views as to possible progress. Crucially for the the BoD it
also includes the liability for any action taken which might explain the delay getting those actions right. The next RNs will be interesting and some may be disappointed while others will be pleased as I think it is clear from comments here and elsewhere that there is a split view regarding support for whether they go bust or try again to raise capital. Anyway, for me given some of the information/indicators slowly appearing I do believe that we may soon see some positive news .

Freddie,
You are getting paranoid about everything.

Gilders,
If you go to the Company house web site and look under filing for this company you will see that it as been in existence for some time but no activity in 2019 ( at least not yet anyway!)
Oldblue, good post!

Good post SL,
Freddie, just because somebody quotes the same report as GM does not make them that person, you really, really do not know how obviously wrong you are! Regarding Valju point about me knowing the process he followed so I must be one of the board , it was quite simple to see when he/you stated what he had done and what he expected the board to do in response. No inside knowledge from me just a bit of normal research about the process to be followed.
Never going to convince you or join your cause so I will simply wait and see how this unfolds.

This is taken from the Report: AIM Directors’ Remuneration Report 2020 dated 17 February 2020. which might interest some.

https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/industries/aim/aim-directors-remuneration-report

CEO median total remuneration for AIM listed companies is £324,000 which is 30% higher than the equivalent figure for 2014. For FDs/CFOs, the median salary for the latest year is £208,000.
This figure marks an 18% increase from five years ago when the median salary was £175,500.
The percentage of individuals receiving a bonus has been quite steady over the past two years. For both CEOs and FDs/CFOs, just over 70% of executives have bonus elements included in their remuneration.

Despite what some conveniently say, I am not in any way associated with the Board or anybody working for Val, just a long term holder with a substantial share holding.

valju,
i suspect that the silence you refer to is simply that they do not have to answer you unless legally required to. You may think that arrogant but they clearly don't, you are the ones with the proposal and have to ensure that it complies with all of the correct procedures,not them until you have done your bit.

Mer,
I agree with you but there is so much shouting on here from the baying mob that all normal reason has gone out of the window. Most will know that this is how AIM works which is why it is high risk! One only has to look at similar aim stock to see the same pattern of wages and money raising.
Refusing the consolidation was a mistake my opinion and I suspect that the share will be suspended, but at least this will give Val the time to sort out the next stage to raise money either by consolidation or other means. At least the next vote will be under different rules so common sense may still prevail.

Going to be interesting to see how low valirx lets the sp go before they announce what they are going to do next.

Some interesting suggestions and comments throughout the day but my guess is that we will get another proposal for an amended vote with either consolidate or administration.
I have not seen the letters sent by the various groups or individuals but the comments on here referring to them don't seem to be anywhere near the win/ win situation needed so in my opinion not going to be met with much enthusiasm by the board. As earlier poster said, to fight that with a no confidence vote will take deep pockets, particularly regarding the legal and indemnity costs/risks etc. I really do not think that the directors of the company they formed and built will give it up very easily, but once again not long to wait for the next step.

Why would you prosecute them, simply because you don't like the way that handled the business or is it because they held a gun to your head to make you buy their terrible shares!!
Suggest you read the Val articles and in particular the indemnity section, perhaps you should have done that before you invested and then perhaps you would have known what risk you were taking.

Sad day for the development of cancer treatment but no arguing with the voice of the majority shareholders.
I guess the BoD will now sell the most valuable product, probably too cheaply, to fund the others.
Will be an interesting six weeks.

HeidHoncho,You are exactly right with your post and I do realise that not all undeclared voters are Yes voters and that it might be tight, we shall see.Valju, why do you think that anybody who does not share your view is an imposter- Tarquin??? and whats with the lol everywhere, you sound like my kids when they used to be school age facebook users before they grew out of it.

Freddie,
You really should stop misleading or making false statements such as 'majority of small shareholders' as you do not know this at all. You must remember that even if your group has a couple of hundred million pledged to say no, that is still only a small part of the 1,000+ million shares held, by others who may not agree with your group. We will know on Monday so not long to wait. Please don't be offended but this does appear to me to have taken over your life, so I hope the meeting will be worth your travel, and the board are there to answer your questions so you can get back to normal.

Hi Noise,
Thanks for the reply and I certainly agree that AIM is stressful and like you I am slowly getting out. I think we all have to go through the aim process, something to do with get rich quick perhaps? The reality is that we eventually realise that many fail. I still have some with prospects (WSG as example) but being patient is the key,and unfortunately being prepared to lose it all . I have not written Val of just yet and perhaps the 70p spike might return, I certainly won't miss it this time! I have been holding VAl for so many years it will seem strange to sell but looking at likes of lloyds potential and dividends perhaps I will build my holding there. Good luck with the strategy and see you on the other boards.