Member Info for The.Italian

bignose,maybe I've not understood your question about the LSE post tabling.seems to be as usual on my site, historic posts recorded by time stamp not subject.as i say hope i haven't misunderstood you.

morning bignose and bothwell.not a good morning,but as you suggest bignose need to put it in perspective.just very rough calculations(haven't bothered with up to date exchange rate etc)but about £95k traded.based on the number of trades it's an average of £570 approx per trade.obviously some were quite a bit larger but also many smaller. so looks like retail trading on momentum and exaggerated by diminishing free float. may simply reflect disaffection with an apparently rudderless company which cannot even deal with the simple matter of a name change. not suggesting it is anything other than very disappointing,but doubt the drop is based on any forthcoming bad news (famous last words?).we shall see.

french website,Kdonkey. good find thanks. presumably nothing on belgium advertising yet, but good to see availability widening.

thanks for the replies,albert and PG.yes i think someone else did say that about escrow hold on II.dont know if the issue is regulatory or self imposed (perhaps a bit of both in some cases),but i can see things getting bit complicated for those of us not familiar with,or at ease in ,the crypto world.anyway thanks again for the comments.

agree bothwell.you would certainly think so..i don't think he has anything like 57% in any of the other companies, of which i am aware.

whilst i have no idea of the financial circumstances of the BOD members, their failure to buy more than relatively token amounts of shares does concern me. it was a common theme put forward on MTFB and constantly dismissed by the more enthusiastic posters with what proved, in the event, to be purely casuistic excuses ("it's an american style company and they do things differently over there",was the usual reason given).i am currently not invested(i was in the past)but am attracted again by the change of focus regarding the lab and the low M/C.,just a tad concerned over the lack of board investment. perhaps at this M/C level it doesn't really matter.

if anyone has any up to date news on the token issue? I've not found anything in the media outlets and had nothing as yet from HL.

exactly bignose.whilst I've said a number of times that im very sceptical of them being able to find a willing partner/licensee ahead of formal approval (at least on favourable terms)i think that is what they will be trying to do.the repeated references in the announcements to this possibility suggest this is the aim and the financial exigencies of the situation would seem to make this an imperative. unless fortacin is seen as an unmissable opportunity .(which im sure it isn't) the terms of any deal before approval are not going to be pretty.i really don't want to be overly negative,but being realistic,a poor deal is probably the best we can hope for.at least it might help avoid even more dilution and might help smooth the approval process.all speculation of course.

indeed let us hope so.agree with you on the price and patent points,but just hoping (against all previous experience!) that things will go better than expected.

not entirely sure about the "humility"aspect!

afternoon bignose.pleased to see we recovered from the day's lows,but still a bit puzzled by the fall.agree it must be down to liquidity issues/concerns from the proposed capital reduction.whilst i still don't really see why. the fact is that after the reduction there will only be 1/20th of issued shares compared with now. perhaps it is more out of concern that something else is afoot.although the statements don't really support that view.agree that better not to place any reliance on the "exponential"description,as we've heard it all before in different terms.that said,im not sure how much of a chance we have had so far with eu sales,given the ongoing supply difficulties.we shall see.

very much my thoughts, curious. whilst i wasn't expecting any boost to the s/p from yesterday's results, equally i didn't think they justified a fairly significant drop. as I've said before, perhaps I've missed something.

yes,that's a good point bignose.would help explain matters a bit. still haven't really got my head round the capital reduction aspect.will give it some more thought.

agree with that,bigboyblue. thanks very much Vigneron, for posting and taking up the issue with them.

morning bignose and bothwell. no,certainly hasn't gone down well(although i agree with you bignose that it will pick up in due course}. i must confess to being quite puzzled at the negative reaction.of course,one needs to bear in mind that erp is pretty illiquid and the s/p responds quite violently to quite small value trading.even though today's volume is much higher than usual,the actual value traded is very small and in other companies wouldn't warrant an 18% fall.im puzzled because on the face of it i can't see anything in yesterday's news(at least in the results aspect) to give rise to fresh negative sentiment at this point.i can accept that the results underline the shaky nature of the business,but this has been apparent for a long time now.shareholders have already paid the price of recapitalisation through the concomitant dilution and if anything the results narrative gives a slightly more positive feel to the position.the FDA position does seem to have moved on a notch and china seems well on track,so nothing specific there to change investor perception. perhaps it is a knee jerk reaction to the ludicrous(it can be regarded as nothing less,imo)decision to go back to the old name.endurance was obviously a ridiculous choice in the first place,but why go back to regent,a name which conveys absolutely nothing to anyone.if you are going to change,surely they could come up with something more suitable for the modern era than regent.anyway,if it wasn't the results,perhaps it's worry over the capital reduction.i must be missing something,as at the moment i can't see it as a negative,but im no expert in these areas.i agree bignose,that investors may be worried that further dilution is in the offing,but as they state they have enough funds for immediate needs,i don't see that as a trigger at this point.as i say i expect i am missing some fundamental point.more thought needed on my part i think.

i have now had a chance to refer back to the last operational update to compare what has been said today with what was said then.if i have understood correctly(and the language is not quite as clear as i would have liked)we seem to have held the actual type c meeting and agreed in principle the requirements for the SPA and the next step is to complete the formulation of the precise SPA ,which will be submitted to the fda in q2 for formal(hopefully)agreement.following the completion of the SPA,the trial can be implemented in accordance therewith.is this how others see it? if correct it seems things have moved on somewhat and is, i think, an encouraging development. i am struggling atm with the implications of the capital reduction and may return to that aspect in due course.

"exponential growth". are my eyes deceiving me?

on a serious note,there is quite a lot to take in and on first reading im not really clear as to FDA position.i will need to read back over last few announcements to try and clarify. doesn't sound as though DLI is for the chop, but why the name change?

yes that is the inference which i draw also.

who are these "key stakeholders"who are confused by the current nam e?surely the only key stockholder is mellon and if he is confused by the name then heaven help us!

just on the name change point,how does the name "regent"give any indication as to what the company does?am i missing something?obviously competing for the "laughingstock of the year "award.