Member Info for Tillerman

Longevity companies are in the news today I see, topically enough. Http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11827118 i suspect we may all need this kind of treatment if want to live long enough to see any return on investment here.

Yes, I think you have nailed it. A Transaction, Tequila Slammer and a Terrible Idea all at the same time must be the worry. 50% of their funds invested in the DBC on laughable terms would be pretty dire for example, and far too possible.

It's amazing that "We working on a T" via twitter is the sum total of their comms over a six month period. T-errible idea? T-hylacine hunt? T-akeover of the DBC? T-akeover of A.N Other? At least we know that JM and MA are on speaking terms if MA has access to JM's twitter a/c, though of course the truncated nature of the tweet might have been caused by JM clubbing him with a baseball bat after he found him using said a/c. And the 3.25 am timing of the tweet suggests the burning of midnight oil, just possibly.

"We working on a T" That inspires a lot of confidence. I hope his corporate skills are better than his English language ones. Not sure how they can do a takeover and get it approved without delisting in the interim now. Thanks for the post though SP.

I think whether they become investment company (and presumably raise more cash at some point), which could well involve some kind of DBC investment as part of the parcel, depends on whose idea it was to kill the DBC RTO, if it was JM's then perhaps no problem. if Anand got cold feet relations between the board could well be chilly, which could explain the lack of comms and mean just the return of cash option was realistically on the table. There must be some reason for the lack of guidance from LIFE itself, and a face saving, salary extending silence might well be it. I can't imagine that anyone would now vote to allow the board more time as an unlisted co to find investments, unless they can supply very cogent inducements indeed.

"The Company is now classified under the AIM Rules as an Investing Company and has adopted the Investing Policy as set out in Appendix 1 to this Announcement. Under the AIM Rules, the Company is required to make an acquisition or acquisitions which constitute a reverse takeover under the AIM Rules or otherwise implement its Investing Policy within twelve months of the General Meeting, failing which, the Company's Ordinary Shares would then be suspended from trading on AIM. If the Company's Investing Policy has not been implemented or it has been unable to make an acquisition or acquisitions which constitute a reverse takeover under the AIM Rules within 18 months of the General Meeting the admission to trading on AIM of the Company's Ordinary Shares will be cancelled and the Directors will convene a general meeting of the Shareholders to consider whether to continue seeking investment opportunities or to wind up the Company and distribute any surplus cash back to Shareholders. " http://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/life-science-de-LIFE/share-news/Copper-Development-Corporation-Result-of-Meeting/68759494 So perhaps not quite so bad as feared. The could still just make one or more investments it seems as long as it's by 5/4, if not they will call a meeting to discusss returning funds.

The link below details the rule changes that came in shortly after LIFE became an investment shell in 2015. It seems LIFE was a doubly attractive proposition thereafter, given the reduced requirements prevailing until Dec 2015. They may well have squandered that, though there is just maybe still the possibility of becoming an investment co. The 20 day delisting notice requirement looks like red herring in the event of mandatory cancellation, though it is hard to get a definitive reference, while the word "normally" appears before cancelled in regarding AIM rule 41 after 6 months supension. There is no reference to extensions though. http://www.nabarro.com/insight/briefings/2015/december/changes-to-the-aim-rules-affecting-investing-companies/

Can you cite a precedent re extension of suspension? I cannot find one, but only had a quick look. Also it is not clear if 20 days notice applies to involuntary cancellation for infrigment of AIM rules, already already flagged as a possibility if no RTO in the Oct RNS, as opposed to voluntary delisting (where it definitely does, you won't be able to delist without it). See also link below which does not mention extensions. There might be one or two other things they could do such as investing at least 50% of their assets somewhere, not sure. I wouldn't hold my breath. Http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2011/09/08/your-money/you-re-suspended-wAcfAyKqDVQIxvIGG7A3eO/article.html

Since JM extended the DBC 2 million credit in Jan, secured against all the co's assets inc IP etc, repaying it theoretically won't be a problem, assuming some fudge isn't found to allow the DBC to keep the cash in return for significantly overvalued shares or extend the loan (naturally unsecured, and at a low interest rate), all of which may not officially happen till after delisting to remove the need for an RNS. I suspect the board here would like nothing better than to quietly delist without saying anything, but that may not be possible. Certainly Square profits will have more to say i imagine

But Square profits actually tipped this at one point did they not? And the related party (supposed) RTO of the DBC was only announced after suspension, had it been announced while the co was trading there might well have been a black friday style stampede for the exits. It did not seem to occur to anyone that the search for investments candidates might have been largely or wholly a sham prior to that, with LIFE being effectively "reserved" for the DBC all along, a 'privilege' for which shareholders have actually had to pay a significant sum in hard cash, even before the latest fiasco. The DBC is not a spoof as such anyway (though its valuation is another matter), it is a worthy enterprise in its own way, addressing a very serious large scale problem. The trouble is it doesn't look ready for market, at least not at the sort of valuation which JM, for historical reasons, seems to need, and who knows when it will be, if ever. If you will excuse a little black humour, it may well be that too many people wouldn't be seen dead in his lithium powered boots, and those bulky battery packs can't help either. On the other hand, once it has those Medicare reimbursement codes and proof of efficacy studies things might change, it's not completely out of the question. That could be a year or more away though, with debts (to JM) piling up all the time. Meanwhile, the lack of any communication from LIFE to its shareholders really is utterly disgraceful imo, and beneath contempt. Since JM and his henchman FD constitute a majority of the Board, an extremely charitable asumption might be that Anand's hands are tied here, but he looks like a total muppet at best for allowing that situation to arise, if that is in fact the case.

Yes, little to no chance of RTO now imo, the DBC twitter a/c has removed all links to tweets re RTO in the last hour or two, looks like someone has had a quiet word. I hope i'm wrong but I suspect holders will be sadly dependent on JM's goodwill, ie not wanting to damage his reputation, to see any return of capital (it's all just pin money to him after all), though the option of calling an EGM remains open to them. But the whole thing is feels very, very Cesspit Aim at the current moment in time. I expect ************* will have a fair few unflattering things to say on the subject, their concerns seem to have been well founded.. If you want to clutch at straws It is just possible you may end up with a stake in a better prospect than the DBC, which will presumably now have to have its value written down in the a/c's of co's like FFWD. Heaven knows when though such a stake would emerge onto the AIM though.

I see the DBC on twitter (PulseFlowTech)has "liked" and retweeted the following tweet today. Significant? Probably? Ant1986‏ @Ant1986 Mar 20 #LIFE - having not given 20 days notice to delist - Wednesday (I think) is THE day @PulseFlowTech 0 replies 2 retweets 2 likes Of course if they need to give 20 (business) days notice of delisting and don't, what is the punishment going to be? Delisting? lol

NB I hear the DBC's Twitter account has suddenly burst into life this week after several months of quiesence, so perhaps that is a +ve sigh. Https://twitter.com/PulseFlowTech

I see what you mean re PLE. Re LIFE it might be worth phoning one of the numbers given at the end of the RTO RNS in October last year to see if you can find out what is happening (see below). Also JM's email, I think, is on some of the Companies House links from Dec/Jan. " Should the Acquisition proceed, the Company intends to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting in due course in order to seek specific shareholder for the Reverse Takeover under AIM Rule 14 and associated matters. Life Science Developments Limited Denham Eke, Chief Financial Officer +44 (0)1624 639396 Nominated Advisor and Broker Beaumont Cornish Limited Roland Cornish and Felicity Geidt +44 (0)207 628 3396

A 14 day notice of EGM is required I believe, so it isn't looking too good here, though as there are a few days left till the technical deadline, all is not lost yet. Also the 31st March loan repayment date does lend some limited support to the idea they planned it this way all along. I suspect one likely cause of the delay in listing is that the DBC may have been hoping to obtain insurance reimbursement codes in the US in the interim, to boost the vauation - This is mentioned in an interview they gave earlier in the year, and is probably one of the 'major milestones' that have been referred to. The process always takes a long time, but without the codes, and the proof of efficacy trial results, initial sales will inevitably be slow, regardless of the potential. It is also possible JM may have been trying to ignore the above and holding out for too high a valuation, making it difficult to raise additional funds from third parties for the RTO. It is hard to see how he could escape without significant reputational damage if LIFE simply delists though, since he has been paid to act in the best interests of its shareholders. However, I doubt that will be much consolation to LIFE investors, who now feel in some danger of losing 100% of their investment. In the event of delisting without an RTO LIFE could opt to return remaining funds to shareholders, or could be theoretically compelled to do so via an EGM.