The engines have fired up at last for MDX. ( BPRG ) At long last they are being recognised for the force they will become over the next two years. On the cusp of disclosing huge revenue-earning deals with Global pharmacists. These have been hinted at as being unrolled before the years end, but may be in the next days.You still have time to get in at a bargain-basement price before the SP takes off for real shortly.

Did you see the BDO report Gausie ?

Appears everyone had their finger in the pie right from the start , always said the whole bloody lot stunk from the first time I looked at them in 2004.

Here we go :

BDO Report

wow - the usual suspects. And the Mad Munc appears to be kayser soze.

Ok, I'll start with this (there's plenty more earlier along the same lines):

Mufprat - 11 Dec'08 - 23:01 - 21182


BTL SEC 10KSB Filing Dec 2001

Directors and senior management costs

For 2001, directors and senior management costs were $1,500,708 compared with $1,533,528 in 2000. The latter included the $150,000 management charge referred to in the paragraph below and bonus amounts totaling approximately $350,000, which were not expenses in 2001. From July 1, 2001, the salaries of directors were cut by two thirds and all bonus provisions reversed for a period of twelve months, at which time the salaries will be reviewed again.

Management charges- Management charges payable to Jade ceased on March 31, 2000. During the first quarter of 2000, management charges of $150,000 were
paid but none were paid in the second quarter of 2000 and thereafter.

As requested MR Muncaster, indeed you are correct, but you all still took $1.5M out of a company that made a $6.5M loss for the year. I guess it was all getting a bit too embarrassing?



Wheelbrace1 - 11 Dec'08 - 23:01 - 21183


Mufprat - 11 Dec'08 - 22:44 - 21175 of 21181
my research has shown the same and worse


Mufprat - 11 Dec'08 - 23:06 - 21184


Alfynn, as far as I'm concerned I'm doing what is right for me and that is attempting to counter this pathetic scenario where BJM is seen riding to the rescue of the company. I'm afraid I do not have the resources to do much else.

Following post 5163 here, I posted an extract on the other side, specifically because I thought it worth highlighting BJ's mendacity - which after all, had been summed up in a judgment.


Dottle - 12 Dec'08 - 01:29 - 21203


Fascinated to keep reading about threats of investigation and prosecution for market abuse here - and I've skipped through nearly 9k's worth of posts since I last looked in.

Here's an extract from something mentioned earlier that ended up on a BPRG thread on moneymorning, some four and a half years ago, having originally been posted over here. Don't know who the original author is, but there are plenty of references to what certainly is in the public domain:



Firstly Bioprogress was started after Barry Muncaster had finished his 7 year ban to be a director of a company, imposed upon him for conduct in Tansoft Ltd. (see Butterworths Company Law Cases Ch D pages 339-358 Judge Warner 18-20, 24-26 July, Oct 1 1990. The outcome of this business enterprise was described as follows in the Bioprogress Annual Report, 2002 ; [Barry Muncaster] is a co-founder and served as Chief Executive Officer, of Oric Products International Limited, which, within three years of its start-up, manufactured and sold in excess of 300,000 personal computers, achieving annual sales revenues in excess of $45,000,000 prior to its sale in 1983 to an investment company quoted on the London Stock Exchange.

Some of the charges made against him at that time related to the fact that no accounts for Tansoft had ever been audited or filed, and that Crown moneys (that is, debts to the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise) had not been paid. However, there were more serious allegations relating to the way in which related companies dealt with each other, and in relation to a flat in Spain bought with Tansofts money. When one of the related companies could not trade out of its financial difficulties, its assets were sold to another company in which Barry Muncaster had an interest, and in circumstances in which it was unlikely that it would receive payment for the assets.

I quote from the judgment (Re Tansoft, 1990):



About Mr Muncasters own evidence I must say this. He is obviously an intelligent man, and his familiarity with the mass of documents before the court was impressive. He conducted his case correctly and, if I may say so, with skill. But I did not believe everything he said. It was among other things noticeable how, more than once, his version of events changed materially as he was pressed in cross-examination.



Bioprogress had a history of related company transactions while it was incorporated in the US. This is a legacy from the past, as is evident from looking at the tangled mass of Oric, Tansoft, and other transactions. Of one such transaction the judgment states:

Mr Newey put this episode forward as an instance of Mr Muncaster failing to distinguish between different companies interests. I think he was right, but I would express it more bluntly. I think that it was another instance of Mr Muncaster being a party to a misapplication of Tansofts funds.


And this fella picked up on it:


mad mike - 12 Dec'08 - 02:58 - 21207


Dottle, that stuff about Barry isn't new, though some on here may not know about it. I assume it was amongst the reasons that Barry stepped down from an Executive role when Bioprogress got publicly floated on AIM.

Also, I wasn't over impressed by Barry's evidence on 'double' (& differing) diary notes in the SEO v BPRG patent court case.

For all those reasons I have not supported people wanting to put Barry on Meldex's Board. IMHO, fine (actually good), to have Barry as a company advisor, but not have him on the BOD.

However, Barry is clearly street wise, despite sometimes sailing a bit close to the wind (though I bet Branson did as well). I think we need a street wise person on our side at this time, provided we can be confident he is pulling in the same direction as ourselves (& he appears to be). Barry also needs to take care about inadvertently supplying misinformation to several of his numpty followers, and get them to stop trashing honest people like Lexuss2 and Inghu. It is the actions of these numpties that are threatening to divide the Shareholders, not the actions of Lexuss2 & Inghu, IMHO.

Currently I believe, Barry and PI's interests are aligned. If Barry were to screw the PIs at this stage, he, and his followers would never, ever get another LSE float away again. I suspect that would be a big threat to their future financial well-being. PIs hurt by any bad action here, would make sure any such float is torpeoded, before it ever got past the planning stage. I'm sure Barry knows this, and will make sure he doesn't f*ck up, or screw the PIs.

So I say, let all PIs try to work with Barry, and have him as a company advisor after all this gets sorted, but not have him, or any of his followers on the Board. Any non-Exec Board member needs to be whiter than white, and untainted by the past.

From what I know of John Wall(spacecowboy3), I would support djpreston's suggestion of puting John on the Board, though I don't know if John would be interested. John is bright, thoughtful, analytical, strategic and knows the industry, plus looks to have integrity. Not many of them about!


This was noteworthy, where BJ was defending himself for the second time the following morning, with regard to misinterpreting an email expressing intent to call an EGM, which had just about panicked the whole BB. I have emphasised the bit that made me giggle the most - the fact that he flatters himself that we've been 'prompted to trash' him! :


B J Muncaster - 12 Dec'08 - 09:47 - 21354


Mad Mike,

Come on Mike, do you think for one minute that I was posting solely on the words in the email?

You say call off my numpties. How about the performance of the other side's numpties? Can you not see what's going on here?

It's common knowledge that Hambi has had severe personal problems this year. Do you think, amongst all his other issues, he suddenly thought to himself I wonder if the KKs still have the same number of shares as issued to them eighteen months ago? My guess is he was prompted.

Do you think it a coincident that a new alias pops up and discloses confidential information about the closure of Tampa? My guess is he was prompted.

Do you think it a coincident that someone who we know is close to RT pops up and disclosed confidential information about the disposal of the Dexo France business unit? My guess is he was prompted.

Do you think it a coincident that new aliases appear trashing me without disclosing their names, their shareholdings (if any), and their proposals to help the Company? My guess is they're prompted.

Too any coincidents for my liking.


Next, the serial question that has never been answered:


Mufprat - 12 Dec'08 - 10:32 - 21393


B J Muncaster - 12 Dec'08 - 09:47 - 21354 of 21387
Do you think it a coincident that new aliases appear trashing me without disclosing their names, their shareholdings (if any),.........

And what exactly is your personal shareholding? A question you seem reluctant to answer.


Finally, (and this must have taken him a while to, err, cobble together) a 'definitive' reply from BJ:


B J Muncaster - 12 Dec'08 - 11:23 - 21427


Im very grateful for the kind words of support, both in respect of the attacks against me and against the work Im doing with Gary Cressman.

I find it somewhat bizarre that a few posters such as Mufprat, Wheelbrace and Helen Troy, all posters about whom we know nothing no name, no idea about shareholding, no idea about plans to help the Company can come on here and attempt to disrupt my efforts when (a) they dont know what Im doing, and (b) they know nothing about the true state of affairs of the Company.

A few points:

The extract from JMs email is genuine. I will not post the entire email because it contained some confidential information. The extract posted is not confidential and not subject of the CDA because (a) the information was available to other persons not subject of a CDA, and (b) a provision of the CDA is that information that enters the public domain via any source not subject of a CDA is not confidential.

Any person who doubts the accuracy of the extract should contact the Companys IR people and ask for confirmation. If they in any way deny it, then I will post the entire email as I would be entitled to do in defence of being called a liar.

No matter how thin the pancake it always has two sides. You decide if my detractors are giving both sides of the story.

With regard to Jade, Jade paid virtually all bills including all employee salaries for BTL (and BTII) at the time those companies were potless and the current outstanding balance owed to Jade is in excess of 1 million; this is the net cash position for all inter-co transactions. Just because I havent claimed it does not mean it isnt owed. And before anyone asks, the Company was made aware of this prior to expiry of the SOL. All supporting documents - ledgers, chequebooks, wire transfer forms are with the Companys lawyers. In addition, the numbers quoted from 2000 were in the main not paid, and ultimately were converted into shares at a price above market. So, aliases, thanks for reminding me of the outstanding debt. Perhaps I should now make claim on the Company, is that what you want?

With regard to the old Tansoft stuff, its all in the public domain and known to all PIs who invested in BPRG in the early days, and to anyone else who cared to ask. Its been posted all over bulletin bards many times. Again, there are always two sides to everything and only one side is referenced by the aliases.

What theyve failed to point out is:

At the time I was absolutely potless and had no legal representation, none, no solicitor, no counsel. I represented myself in the High Court for ten days and against me was counsel, junior counsel, and more lawyers from the DT I than one could count on one hand.

Had the aliases posted the full comments from Judge Warner you would have seen that at the beginning he offered me an adjournment because I had failed to give the required 28 days notice to my former co-directors, each of whom had filed an affidavit. Their affidavits placed all blame on me. I had given them 21 days notice. My response to the offer of an adjournment was were all here so we may as well get on with it. In Judge Warners judgment, he says, roughly, that Mr Muncaster was probably unaware of the consequences of refusing an adjournment. Unless witnesses are cross examined under oath, I have no alternative but to accept their affidavits as the truth. In other words, once Id given up the opportunity to cross examination witnesses I had no means of challenging their evidence even though I was in possession of evidence that would have rebutted their statements. I thought, mistakenly, that I could introduce evidence to rebut their statements. Not so.

This point of law may not be known to most people, but it is to me now and I paid a high price for that particular piece of my education.

As an aside, and just to show how things can change over time, at the time UK companies were pioneering work in the PC market, and we were at the front of it for a while, the accountancy profession couldnt understand the value of software. They couldnt get their heads around the fact that an 8 disk and a printout could have enormous commercial value. You have to realise that at that time I had bought the first ever exclusive license to use Microsoft software sold outside the US for an all-up one-time fee of $25,000. In fact, the fee was payable in four equal instalments and a term of the license was that if we found a bug the next instalment would not become payable until the bug was fixed. We found a bug in the AND statement after paying only the first instalment of $6,250, at home I have a letter from Paul Allen saying were aware of that bug and Bill is working on it right now. The bug was never fixed and we never paid another cent to Microsoft. The software was embedded in 350,000 PCs. At the time I bought the license Microsofts turnover was $1.6M.

One of the primary causes for the failure of Tansoft was the refusal of our auditors to sign-off its accounts with value attributed to our software. We had our software in the balance sheet at cost (at the time totalling around 250,000), the auditors insisted it had zero value. The write-down in our assets caused us to breach our banking covenants and the rest is history. Within eighteen months the accountancy profession caught up with the real world and agreed that software did have some value.

So, I am not the least bit concerned about what others may have to say about me. But I am concerned that they are trying to detract from efforts to save the Company for the benefit of all shareholders (and yes Mufpart, that does include me because I do own shares). After all is said and done, thats why were here at least why Im here.

Beans on toast next :)

Diljust enjoying the momentknow need to post!

This has become gripping stuff!

Never have I seen such confidentail information and plans revealed on bulletin boards in my life!

BB is promising more documents are to be revelaed later, so the intrigue grows!

Barry has mentioned a "rumoured 2p placing" that has spooked everyone, but if they need cash, can't see them raising it in the market at much over 2p anyway presently.

Good to see at least one holder happy tabby as there aint many happy bunnys in the zoo.

It's all that scabby tradervic's fault!


tradervic - 22 Dec'08 - 10:47 - 28549


I would imagine that the Board have a few pressing problems, namely how to pay the wage bill at the end of December, if they default then an administrator will need appointing straight away for the sake of any future value that might be left in the IP. Staff will already be on the move, the RNS will clearly have panicked most staff members.

Maybe administration is best, clean start, new name, not listed!




B J Muncaster - 22 Dec'08 - 12:20 - 28648


Re latest rumour:

Talk of the Company doing a placing at 2p a share, delisting and staying private for a few years.

Now that sounds like a plan FFS.

bargainbob - 22 Dec'08 - 13:49 - 28805 of 28874

The 2p rumour could be a scare tatic .
looks like its working lads, who first posted it.


B J Muncaster - 22 Dec'08 - 13:53 - 28806 of 28874

bargainbob,

I did in respect of the price. Sorry you're not in the loop, but it does show you know nothing - again.


bargainbob - 22 Dec'08 - 13:54 - 28807 of 28874

Why would you do that, make your plan look better LOL.



B J Muncaster - 22 Dec'08 - 13:57 - 28811 of 28874

barganbob,

I did it because that is the rumour and rather than have the likes of you f*rt about I thought I'd tell it like it is. You should try it some time.

It really does defy belief :S

debaleb - 22 Dec'08 - 14:58 - 28869 of 28875


Jesus......the Tansoft stuff is well known and has been dissected to death over the years, who cares!

Every successful entrepreneur out there got where they are by taking chances and occasionally sailing close to the wind, so what if in the past BM was found guilty of a corporate crime, it has nothing to do with this.

Look at the chart and the state of the company, the real criminals are those running this company not those attempting to save it.

Anyway, reckon these are probably the salient posts weeded out of the dross over the last few days.


Inghu - 20 Dec'08 - 14:35 - 27396 of 28899

To all the genuine shareholders out there, I would like to say a few things. I am not posting often because I am spending a very large amount of time on the phone and writing emails as things progress forward. Posting on the BB does not help the company. Real actions with real results are what I'm achieving.

The reason for the suspension is exactly as it says in the RNS. I know why it was forced into suspension and I can say that it has nothing to do with what I'm doing. If I had done nothing over the last week and a half, we would still be in suspension today. I have no idea when the suspension will be lifted.

The suspension and the BOD's time dealing with that has delayed things on my side as clearly the BOD had to deal with the suspension reasons, and is still doing so.

My "plan" is still on track and moving forward. To the critics who say that it's not a plan, and I'm speaking about one person in particular, you clearly do not have all the facts, and your scaremongering is showing your true colours. How can management at a TTP level and funding not be a plan. Outrageous. I'll let the shareholders judge who really has their interests at heart.

Yes, it's taking a little longer than envisioned. Being under CDA, I'm enlightened as to the complexity of the situation which requires verification of many things, and the protocol adds time. But if things are to be done properly, then each step must be accomplished before the next step is taken. This is not to say that things are being dragged out because I can say that things are progressing quite quickly in all respects.

Anyone who thinks that I'm foolish or amateurish or otherwise is again, not fully understanding the situation and is, imo, speaking out of turn. I am not being lead down the garden path. While I was the architect of this plan, it involves several highly experienced people in this area. I am not walking alone. There are people involved who are of much higher calibre than some of those who post here claiming to be looking out for shareholders best interests.

The interests of ALL shareholders are being looked after here, even those who heavily criticise me.

I'll will not be around to reply further since I have more phone calls to make.

Inghu



B J Muncaster - 20 Dec'08 - 16:37 - 27449 of 28899

Well Inghu, all I can say is you're not in contact with the right people. Or perhaps the right people haven't informed you.

Your plan has been ditched, end of. It was already on life-support and that was turned off on Thursday. I was present to witness the final death throws. It was never a runner.

You know and I know that your funding was no more than a perhaps. In any event, it wouldn't be sufficient. Oh, and more rather important point, it couldn't be achieved without GC's consent.

You know and I know that yout TTP man is nothing more than a mid-level manager with no experience whatsoever in the most crucial tasks facing the Company. I know this for a fact: I met him and asked him direct questions.

I appreciate this may all be quite embarrassing for you. I'm prepared to give you one more chance to speak to "your" people and get the facts about the current situation. I want to know for sure that you or "your" people have spoken to the KKs before you answer. If having done so you still maintain your position, then I'll just have to let loose with both barells. I think it's unfair to have shareholders believing your plan is still on the table. It's time to put this sort of cr*p to bed.



Lexuss2 - 21 Dec'08 - 13:52 - 27888 of 28899

I have been away since 4pm Friday and after this post will be away for another 24 hours (despite my losses I do have other things to deal with than Meldex).

Having caught up with the posts I would add a few comments.

Barry DID have at least one meeting on Thursday about MDX and that was with Inghus side to say otherwise is disingenuous. I understand the meeting was very heated; the heat coming from GC/BJM. I also understand it was clearly stated by Inghus side that if everyone shared the same agenda to support ALL shareholders then resources should be pooled; I am told that offer was rejected and that stance greatly disturbs me, as it should others.

BJM now says Inghus plan was dead in the water on Thursday, something which puzzles me on two counts. Firstly, if this was really the case why was BJMs plan not enacted on Friday (he suggested the only reason it had not been enacted to date was because of Inghu so if Inghus plan is now dead, that reason is removed). Secondly, before I left on Friday I was assured by a director that Inghus plan was still very much on the table, but it needed some additional funding (the original amount was in place but the second amount had only just been mentioned). That additional funding requirement is being worked on at this very moment; something which would not be happening if the plan had been shelved

For what it is worth (and some may say very little), given the events of Thursdays meeting my backing for Inghus plan is more resolute than ever.

If BJM wishes to give him both barrels I will be intrigued to see what bullets they contain to date I am unaware of anything Inghu has done, or proposed, that would cause him guilt or embarrassment and he has certainly not done anything which has added to the parlous state that Meldex currently finds itself in; furthermore, if Inghus plan is indeed dead in the water why would two barrels be necessary?

So I think it would be beneficial if the barrels were fired; this will let Inghus side (and me) know what he has done wrong and if in the firing of those barrels some confidentiality is broken, at least Inghu may then be able to break his silence and allude to some of the things he knows has happened/is proposed.



Inghu - 21 Dec'08 - 18:13 - 28052 of 28899

A letter to the genuine shareholder,

I haven't read all the hundreds of posts but have been made aware of one in particular to which I will reply.

It would seem that BJM is claiming that my plan is dead in the water and has been since Thursday. This is categorically not true and I cannot believe that he would come on here and post this untruth. My plan is still very much alive and kicking and moving forward. I question BJM's motive for posting this. I give all genuine shareholders my word, that if my plan is rejected, that I'll be the first to post and email to that effect. Unless told otherwise by me, do not believe the scaremongering on this BB. I give you my word.

BJM's comment about middle management is laughable. When the name is release, I'll leave it to shareholders to judge if he's right, or if I'm right is saying that he's extremely highly qualified for the job in all respects.

Lastly, BJM claims that I should speak to the KKs before I reply. I am well up to speed with what I need to do with regards to my plan, and listening to BJM's advice certainly is not on the list. I would remind BJM that the BOD consists of 5 votes.

I fully appreciate that some shareholders feel like they're being kept in the dark. I know that I would feel the same. I want nothing more than to tell the full and complete story right now but I cannot. I promise that I will when I can.


Inghu - 21 Dec'08 - 18:28 - 28069 of 28899

janmar33 - 21 Dec'08 - 18:20 - 28060 of 28060
That comment of yours about the BOD consisting of 5 votes is the very thing that worries me, I want this BOD out, I don't care who's plan is adopted but i do not want any of the present BOD to be in charge. They have had their chance and blown it. Why you don't just name your man, most of the people on here know who he is.


I've never said that I want this BOD to remain. I don't. All shareholders seem to agree that change is needed. The important issue is who will replace them. My plan takes this into account. Institutions invest because of management which is why having the highest quality management this time around is the single most important thing. If you know his name, then post it along with his CV. I'm not allowed as I have a CDA to respect but you can. Do it. I have nothing to hide. His reputation will speak for itself.


Lexuss2 - 21 Dec'08 - 22:35 - 28261 of 28899

I do not wish to deliberately castigate posters on this board (except The Doctor) but the following are some quotations from Poorold today which have to be brought to task.





1. when the fucking BOD called inghu at the 11th hour, it was not "in the best interests of shareholders", imo."


2. and I believe inghu doesn't know enough to know what he or his "experienced" people are doing. hence, he's not lying either. it's just ignorance.


3. what bothered me most, and continues to bother me, is/was inghu's groups unwillingness to meet/talk with bjm/GC.




Poorold, you are beginning to make stupid look like an art form. You are either drawing your conclusions from your own agenda or you are being (deliberately) ill informed.

The following is FACT:

1. The BOD did NOT call Inghu (at any hour) Inghu initiated all meetings himself. AND Inghus plan IS in the best interests of ALL shareholders

2. Inghu is not lying; time will tell if his other people are as inexperienced as you maintain (strange that you should state they are, when you do not have a clue as to their identity)!

3. Try to keep up with events; I have already told you that Inghus side has met with Barrys side and I have told you the result of that meeting.

Although Poorold lives in his own world and does post a lot of fantasy, it is heartening to see a lot of reasoned logical conclusions now being reached by many other posters.

And whilst I dont wish to egg the pudding too much I also know The Name and like Inghu I would also like JanMar to post it it certainly wont do Inghus case any harm and, if appointed, it wont do my shareholding any harm either!



B J Muncaster - 22 Dec'08 - 05:57 - 28375 of 28899

The so called revelations by wheelbrace and bargainbob are irrelevant, and posted solely to distract shareholders from the problems now facing the Company.

The Companys financial statements have been audited three times since the date of the BDO report and once since the date of HPs email to the KKs. In each of the audited reports there is no mention of any wrongdoings, cash shortfalls or any other matter arising from the disclosures in the BDO Report and HPs email to the KKs.

If any material issue relating to the BDO Report or to HPs email to the KKs remain outstanding then the directors and/or the auditors have misled the market on at least one and possibly three occasions. Perhaps this is in fact the case, I dont know. Shareholders should question why wheelbrace thinks his revelations are of consequence or relevance right now.

If any shareholder has questions about matters arising from the BDO report relating to me or any of my companies, then Ill be glad to answer them by email and my replies may be posted here. I think this would be best, because I can compile the questions and answer them in one go, rather than hundreds of posts here. Send questions to aquisitek@btinternet.com.

Late on Thursday Gary and I met with Ingus proposed nominee and one of Inghus colleagues. This meeting had not been arranged when I left for London earlier in the day.

Its been reported that the meeting got heated. If the other side think that was a heated meeting, then theyve led a very sheltered life. I left to catch a train around 8 P.M. so wasnt present at a further meeting that took place later. Perhaps that one got heated, I dont know.

This is what we were told:

A group of shareholders are willing to loan up to 1.8 million to the Company provided their nominee is appointed CEO. Funds are conditional upon the appointment and the terms are non-negotiable. The rest of the current board remain in situ.

We already knew the name of the nominee and had conducted our own research into his background.

Inghu has stated that the nominee is from a TTP. True. However, what he hasnt made clear is that the nominee was (more later) CEO of a division of a division dealing in OTC products only, and with a T/O roughly the same size as MDX projected for this year. Hence my comment about him being a middle-level manager.

The nominee had been out of work since March of this year. He claims to have been doing consultancy work since then, at times billing up to $30,000 a month, November being the latest billing. We asked for copies of his invoices, but were refused.

The nominee claims to have the chance to take up a senior position in the US on a compensation package worth $1,500,000 a year. We said he should take it.

The nominee has no prior experience at board level in a public company, has no experience in raising funds, has no contacts within the financial community, and no experience in presenting a company to the investment community.

The nominee spent around 15 months maximum in his position with the TTP and claims on his CV to have increased sales by 7% p.a. YOY. Difficult to achieve YOY progress within a 15 month period dont you think.

The nominee has asked for a salary of 380,000 a year plus all the usual benefits, plus bonus and performance based stock options. I understand he has agreed to reduce the salary component to 300,000.

I asked how he had arrived at his proposed compensation package, expecting to be told that he has studied peer group companies, seen the level of compensation paid to CEOs in particular of peer group companies of a similar size and financial performance as MDX. The answer I got was that hed looked at MDXs last annual report, seen what RT had been paid, and added a bit for inflation.

I was not impressed.

I asked how long Inghus group had known the nominee. I was told two weeks (two weeks last Thursday), meaning around one week prior to Inghus meeting with the BOD.

Given the urgency to get some real direction going, and although having reservations about the nominees capabilities, we offered several compromises. Our primary concern aside from capabilities, was the insistence that the appointment is made on a one year contract. We can see a scenario where, following appointment, the nominee finds the Company in a worse state than he had been told and resigns, at which point he becomes a creditor for a substantial sum.

So we said, why not take a three month consultancy role at 10,000 a month, and during that time we can work together to sort of the Companys problems and devise a plan to restore value for shareholders. This proposal was rejected out of hand.

So we upped the monthly fee to 20,000. Again rejected out of hand

We tried a final monthly fee of 30,000. Once again, rejected out of hand.

We were told his position is non-negotiable.

We asked Inghus colleague if they had looked for any other potential candidates for the CEO position and was told no.

We did discuss other things, such as his knowledge of the Companys core-tech and so on. But frankly wed already come to the conclusion that he isnt the man for the job and it looks to us like just another passenger for the gravy train that is MDX.

The next day we were told by the KKs that Inghus proposal is not workable and is dead in the water. Following this telephone call I had it confirmed by email.



B J Muncaster - 22 Dec'08 - 05:58 - 28376 of 28899

Mad mike,

Read my post and let me know if you think Inghu's plan will deliver the cleen sweep you're looking for.


Gloaming - 22 Dec'08 - 06:05 - 28377 of 28899

B J Muncaster - 22 Dec'08 - 05:57 - 28375 of 28375
............... But frankly wed already come to the conclusion that he isnt the man for the job and it looks to us like just another passenger for the gravy train that is MDX.

BJM, in your plan, who is the right person for the job?


B J Muncaster - 22 Dec'08 - 06:12 - 28378 of 28899

Gloaming,

It isn't me, if that's what you're thinking!

There are several candidates for the job, but IMO none of them would be willing to take on the task until the Company's financial position has been stabilised, it's current BOD (ex KKs) removed, its operations, reporting procedures and controls verified, and the status of core-tech, development and partnering programmes determined.

If the above is done, then I think we can find the right people to take this forward and on the basis that they won't be jumping ship because something snotty comes out of the woodwork post appointment.

Finished my cards now, so I'm off ;)


Inghu - 22 Dec'08 - 15:46 - 28906 of 28926


560 posts since last night. Unable to read them. I have had two posts emailed to me. One dealing with a very low placing. That's not me and I haven't heard the rumour from any credible source but wanted to make things clear. It's my understanding that the company cannot place shares so I cannot see how that rumour is true. I know nothing about this rumour.

BJM, so now you're backtracking that my plan is dead in the water. You did your fellow shareholders a great disservice by posting what you did. Know your facts before you post.

BJM report on my nominee's history and abilities is again laughable. He's quite selective in his presentation of facts when he knows that I'm unable to present a full rebuttal. This man is certainly the best man for the job and is one that the city will highly respect, and most importantly trust. He's clearly shown the ability to manage a large multi-national organization with hundreds of employees, focus on R&D and fast-track those results to market, and was integral in the application of a proprietary drug delivery technology from the lab to the market. Hmmmm, doesn't that sound like a person whose fate was to work for Meldex.



Apparently the nominee is a bloke called Thomas Engelen.

Go Inghu go Inghu go Inghu go Inghu :-)

DilIf you read the posts by the international superstarnipladChay01ordonk4...you would probably amass more intelligence than the whole of the traders on AM put togetherif you truly want an honest opinion of mdx at this moment in timescramble their views divide by threeand you would probably have the answermy views? Well they are my viewsgood day for me though!!! Off for a glass have a good one..

i suppose it was agreat day for you tabby...after all MDX share price did not decline today

Tabatha - MDX is a feckin' shambles. Get used to it. All this "I know, we know" crap is just that.

I've never seen anything like it. The sooner this dies with no returns to shareholders the better.

Chay's good , think he's on Inghu's side , not impressed with anything Donk has to offer and Niplad's posts are a bit boring but do seem to turn up more and more wrong doing which just seems to confirm everyone has been ripping off the shareholders since it floated.

Bouncyyour are a cnut!a very nasty cnutand whats more you are the thickest cnut I have ever seennow do me a favour you disgusting piece of shitgo and fu*k yourself with the wrong end of a pineapplethank Christ you aint got any kids to the rest merry Christmas
Dil Chay and the other twohave the view that I haveand that is until we know the exact offers from both partieswe remain undecideddo me a favour diltell that ugly thick Scottish twat who RT wasthe guys an embarrassment to Scotland.