Member Info for TruthSearcher

@Adrianuk - I get your point but if they had only $2,7m left as of 31.12 and they are about to pay out $4m, do they have enough cash coming in to meet all their other obligations - is I think the concern, not necessarily the $38m question

Agree you need a lot of shares for between $10m and $38m at 2p per share - that boat sailed with the fake Sheikh and the $600k !

@Opendoor - to be fair to Woodstock and Nickel Investor, if the QIA money had been genuine (and we all thought it was !) then there was big upside here - although above 20p would probably have taken 6-12 months imho. Just because people express positive views does not make them a ramper ! The definition of a ramper according to finance talking is "The practice of trying to boost the price of a share and the company behind it by buying the securities in the market with the object of raising demand. If the price rises, the ramper may be able to make a quick profit by selling. This behaviour amounts to market abuse and is illegal." I don't think this definition applies to most people who post positive comments about a share.

Let's focus on investment pros and cons based upon facts and logic, as opposed to trashing the opinions of people who may be investing or getting out of a stock would be my suggestion. Diverse debate leads to better decision making imho

I have the ability to raise $99m by February as I have a Euromillions ticket - but it is unlikely I will ! I think that LEK are in the same position as me, as lenders will be wary of management credibility. Share price may still rise tomorrow and not being able to raise $10-$38m may not be bad, but seems difficult to predict currently ?

I think yesterday afternoon they said they only had $2.7m cash left in the bank on 31.12 and were about to pay out $4m which means I guess they have some loose change left ?

Hi Storey89 - the missing part is they only have 17 days to complete the finance and with their credibility shot and possible management departures, they are very unlikely to be able to raise the cash. That does not mean that an investment here will not be successful, it is however very unlikely they will be back at 9p in the near future, imho

Definitely a conspiracy theory view lol - But your logic about the scam being set up for only $600k benefit has merit and is just one of many reasons why this doesn't stack up. That a few P.I.'s could do more due diligence in 5 minutes than the Board is scary - and I believe you are correct in saying getting the funding together by Feb 2020 will be very challenging. No reputable company will consider this worth the risk now, imho

Do any of the LTH's here have a view on the value of the company (LEK) if the interest in OPL 310 has to be sold ? It looks like they have 17 days from tomorrow to raise the $10m and show they can raise the further £28m ? Therefore trying to work out the value if they can't raise in time and need to sell their interest - no doubt at a reduced value given the forced fire sale situation ?

Good post OMITC - The issue for me is credibility - no bank or institution will want to be associated with LEK imho after this and that could have serious impact on the company's potential. In addition, I worry that these things just don't happen, what else is in here lurking that we don't know about - hopefully nothing, but it would prevent me from investing again unless it dropped to 2p or below and that's not me de-ramping, just being realistic

If it is that obvious then it makes you ask the question : chaos or conspiracy !?

I'll stock my neck out and say the $600k paid by LEK to Seawave won't be coming back one way or the other...otherwise that would have been in the RNS as opposed to listing it as LEK's exposure. Sadly I think there will be more things coming out of the woodwork here as only complete idiots would allow this to happen - and I don't think LEK are complete idiots. Chaos or conspiracy, I suspect conspiracy !

I think if Seawave have been conned as well then they won't refund the money as they won't have it as it would have been passed on ?!

Why should we get the £600k back ? I thought this had been paid to Seawave ?

My sympathy for all that are invested here - this is quite incredible. I was going to check Friday on what the QIA had said in their press release and forgot, but having day traded and sold out on Friday morning I was not invested here this morning. Had the same thing happen to me on ESL so at least I haven't been hit twice. Even though the company exposure is low, I fear this will be the end of the company from a reputation and capital raising perspective.

@nomlungu - thank you also for your post - The Link position is critical and I also found some of your previous research/postings interesting - have copied it below for anyone like me who may not have seen it.

"This company doesn't waste money with false promise.'

They raised £40m in July 2017. Shortly before then there were 761m shares issued and the sp was 12.5p giving a mcap of approx £95m (total £135m).

The mcap today is approximately £12m - that is 90% loss of shareholder value and the business has said it needs to be recapitalised. Surely money might have been wasted?"

@B2HS2L - Many thanks for taking the time to explain and join the dots, much appreciated and this is where this forum has great value. Will be interesting to hear the response and certainly wish for positive developments here for all. Once agian, many thanks

Thanks to Stu and B2HS2L for the great insight - my summary would be that the value of the business is somewhere 10p and 20p in the short term, although future potential is greater given the sector growth options. As ever, cash burn is the issue and will determine whether private shareholders get diluted, wiped out or see a good return. You would think one of the big guys might come in with a cheeky bid as AA did with SXX if the cash position got critical. Overall I think this is worth a speculative investment and wish all holders a good outcome here in 2020.

Thanks, Stu, the bit I don't understand from B2HS2L is "Satisfactory recapitalisation meaning that MidCap wanted to see TRX cash balance fall before next drawdown, - thus achieving MidCap's required recapitalisation of the Company." That isn't my understanding of what a recapitalisation is - ie I thought it meant debt for equity swap or fund raising via issue of new share or bonds ? If it was just Midcap's discretion I would agree that a cash call is not likely, but it is discretion AND recapitalisation ?

Looking for some view on the cash raise possibility - I read under the news listing "Access to tranche two and three, the latter consisting of USD2.5 million, remains in place, however the drawdown of these tranches is subject to MidCap's discretion and Tissue Regenix's recapitalisation. Following the repayment, Tissue Regenix now has enough working capital until the end of March 2020 at least."

My question is that makes it seem to be certain that a cash raise needs to happen which will dilute existing shareholders ? Or is there another possibility ? I am not invested but do see some value here, but in the short term am worried about dilution.

Any thoughts ?

I bought 75524 shares yesterday at 7.939p and sold this morning at 9.32p - my trade was at 09:09 - I think there is value here but also think a mild market correction of 2-3% will happen in the next week, which may affect this. I didn't think the RNS this morning was good, nor bad, just a statement of the obvious following the previous announcements. Will look to buy in again, probably at sub 8.5p