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.

Good morning all>

Please read this post from Chay and you will understand the extent shareholders have been shafted by TFLBT and his MOBIt is also further evident for those that doubt the workload Barry/Garry have taken on free of chargeand for our benefitthe evidence looks pretty dammingand I would presume certain names will be expecting a visit from plodthe question is who will start squealing to save his own bloodI know who my money is on?
-------------------------
Chay01 - 29 Jul'09 - 03:27 - 3584 of 3598

Managed to find a WiFi spot in the Malaysian mountains so heres more details of MDXs claims against RT/SM (Sources: Sworn Statements of BJM & JC, Particulars of Meldex Claim & Freezing Injunction).

MDX is claiming that RT initiated or sanctioned transaction loops to boost the Companys annual revenue and hence benefited financially from a substantial salary increase, cash bonuses and share options. In fact, RT admitted the Company had invented fake sales and licence payments but he apparently tried to lay the blame on fellow directors.

According to BJM, RT..was driven by a desire for personal financial success which to him meant building Meldex into a sufficiently large enterprise to be bought out by a large pharmaceutical company which would bring personal wealth to the First Defendant [RT]. Funding the acquisitions to achieve this aim, meant keeping the share price high which in turn meant not missing financial forecasts given to brokers and the market.

An extract of an email RT wrote to various MDX staff 4-Nov-07 where he presses home that sales figures must be achieved or:

will need to be filled by next month in other ways by those managers. It is not acceptable to admit at this late stage that a mistake has caused sales to slip into next year. Performance is measured on achieving the budgets agreed at the start of the year.

SM is implicated with RT in each of the sham transactions - he failed to report RTs alleged wrongdoing.

Lets have a look at the alleged sham transactions:

Consultancy agreement between Dexo and Dagmar

RT signed a consultancy agreement with Dagmar (Swiss Company based in Geneva). In that agreement Dexo agreed to pay Dagmar 2,000/day consultancy fees for the development of the integration of insulin with Solupol and Swallo.. Paul Kennedy, an associate of RT signed on behalf of Dagmar.

On 5-Jan-07 Dagmar invoiced Dexo for 90 days consultancy (180,000) even though only 81 days (including weekends, bank holidays and Christmas holidays) had passed since the agreement had been signed on 16-Oct-06. MDX wrote to RT on 15-Jun-09 but he failed to offer any explanation to MDX for this invoicing discrepancy.

To the best of SLs knowledge Dagmar never provided any consultancy services in respect of the development of the integration of insulin with Solupol and Swallo and no work has been done with these products since Meldex moved to Cambridge in February 2006.

According to BJM Stephen Lee does not believe a consultancy agreement for these products would have been meaningful without Dagmar consulting with the technical department to identify the scope of work to be undertaken and to provide access to certain scientific and technical data. So far as Stephen Lee can recall or ascertain there is no record of any such data being requested by Dagmar. Further to this, SL produced a document summarising current projects in Jan 07 which showed no reference to the Dagmar consultancy.

No consultancy services have ever been provided by Dagmar to Dexo under the Dagmar Consultancy Agreement. Mohammed Al-Doori, stated at clause 10 to have been Dexos representative for the purposes of the Dagmar Consultancy Agreement, was not employed by Dexo or the Claimant at any material time and he was not aware of either the agreement or Dagmar until Barry Muncaster of the Claimant spoke to him on 24 June 2009.

Licence agreement between Dexo and Dagmar

RT signed a licence agreement with Dagmar ~5-Dec-06.
According to BJM Dagmar agreed to pay 600,000 to Dexo for a licence to access scientific and technical data invented, developed or acquired by Dexo for the purpose of developing and manufacturing three registered pharmaceutical products. The products would utilise MDXs Tabwrap and Solupol technology, however, SL stated that the respective technical teams never sat down to discuss any working plan together.

SM asked HP to raise an invoice for 600,000 to KFP SARL. BJM believes KFP are the initials (in reverse) of a friend of RT and that MDX also traded with a Company called Winford Capital Inc. which is owned by Paul Kennedy. The licence to Dagmar was booked as a sale at 600,000 by Dexo in December 2006.

According to BJM: Mohammed Al-Doori is named as the client representative for Dexo in the consultancy agreement. However, Mr Al-Doori was not employed by Dexo and would not have had any access to Dexos records in order to progress the development work contemplated in the consultancy agreement. I spoke to Mr Al-Doori on the telephone about his involvement with this consultancy agreement on 24 June 2009 and he said to me that he has no knowledge of the existence of the consultancy agreement and has never heard of Dagmar.

BJM continues: . it was not unusual for Meldex or one of its group companies to enter into licence agreements with a limited or non-existent commercial rationale. This practice appears to have occurred in both December 2006 and subsequently in December 2007.

The Dagmar Licence Agreement has never been implemented. Dagmar has never sought or been given access to any of the information that was to have been made available under the Dagmar Licence Agreement.

Payments from Meldex to Dagmar

On 21 May 2007 (i.e. in the financial year following the licence sale to Dagmar), Meldex paid Dagmar 700,000 this was made up of 180,000 for the consultancy services detailed above and the purchase of two CTD format dossiers for 520,000 (260,000 each) suitable for the registration within the EU markets of mouth sprays and mouth lozenges containing benzydamine for the treatment of oral lesions and sore throats.

BJM said that he was informed by SL that dossiers are valuable assets and are therefore kept in secure locations such as a safe and backed up electronically. Stephen Lee has been unable to find any trace of these assets in the records of Meldex or Dexo. No standard documentation relating to the dossiers was traceable nor were they recorded on the balance sheet or in the fixed asset register.

MDX claims that no dossiers were delivered by Dagmar even though SM authorised the payment of related invoices. In an email to JC, 27-Jan-09, SM describes the arrangement, as one of RTs little projects.

BJM summarises the alleged sham transactions with Dagmar as follows:

The net effect of the above series of transactions initiated by the First Defendant is that Meldex, on behalf of Dexo, has paid 700,000 for goods and services that, so far as I can tell, have not been supplied to it. The revenue of 600,000 apparently payable by Dagmar under the licence agreement and added to Meldexs sales for the financial year end so boosting turnover and gross profit as the costs of this transaction would only appear in the following years accounting period. The costs of the transaction would be the payment of 700,000 only 180,000 of which would have to be accounted for in the profit and loss account as the balance of 520,000 could be treated as an asset for balance sheet purposes. The reality is that in fact Meldex paid the licence fee itself in a transaction loop under which there is no trace of consultancy services from Dagmar, no apparent use of the data to which Dagmar wanted access under its licence agreement and no delivery of any dossiers. In addition to Meldexs turnover being overstated the consequence of the First Defendants orchestration of this transaction is that Meldex is at least 100,000 out of pocket, which is presumably the fee paid to Dagmar/Paul Kennedy for its co-operation with this false transaction.

In my view it is self evident that the First Defendant knew that the transaction with Dagmar was a sham. Subsequent events followed a similar pattern and reinforce this conclusion.

Meldex is claiming repayment of the sum of 100,000 (68,326.90 ) plus interest from the First Defendant which is the loss suffered by Meldex as a result of this sham transaction instigated by the First Defendant.

Particulars of Meldex Claim: All these transactions (collectively the Dagmar Transactions) were sham transactions because there was no intention that any of things for which they provided would in fact be provided and in the event none of them was provided. The apparent purpose of the Dagmar Transactions was to enable the First Defendant to record a fictitious sale of 600,000 from Dagmar just before the 2006 year end in exchange for equally fictitious licence fees and a payment for dossiers that would not show up in Dexos accounts until the year following. (Only the licence fees would appear as an outgoing in the profit and loss account, however: the purchase of the dossiers would be treated as a capital acquisition of assets whose value, moreover, would be assumed to match the purchase price and so the purchase would have a neutral effect on the balance sheet). In fact the only purpose of the payment of 700,000 made by the Claimant to Dagmar on 21 May 2007 appears to have been to put Dagmar in funds to pay the Claimant 600,000 nine days later. The Claimant suspects that the balance of 100,000 was a back hand payment to Mr Kennedy to reward him for agreeing to take part in the process. Hence it appears that the Claimant has paid for the fictitious sale of 600,000 recorded by Dexo for the previous year.

The First Defendant engineered and procured the Claimant and Dexo to make the Dagmar Transactions in order to create a misleadingly positive impression of the groups performance in the 2006 financial year. He did so only to boost the value of his shares or share options in the Claimant and to enhance the prospects of his obtaining an increased salary and bonus in the following year. In so doing he acted in breach of the duties set out at paragraphs 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 6(1) and 6(2) above.

As a result of such breaches the Claimant has suffered a loss of 100,000. This represents the net loss to the Claimant on the Dagmar Transactions (being the difference between the two figures mentioned above at paragraph 14 and 15).

Hence the First Defendant is liable in damages and to pay equitable compensation to the Claimant in the sum of 100,000.

Sham transactions with Crescent Pharma Limited (Crescent)

Crescent is a UK company (based in Hampshire). Mr Al Doori is the managing director (he was also an employee of BioProgress Technology Ltd - one of the subsidiary companies of Meldex) - Mrs Luma Auchi and Mr Gerald Malone are fellow directors.

Meldex purchased a number of dossiers and licences from Crescent for 980,000 which they paid for by issuing Meldex equity (shares).

A licensing and supply agreement dated 31-Oct-07 was then entered into between Dexo and Crescent for 940,000.

According to industry experts (Jerry Russell the former commercial director of Custom Pharma and Alan Clements formerly CEO of Peter Black Healthcare Limited and a former marketing director of Seven Seas, a subsidiary of Merck) said the licences and dossiers acquired under this agreement are (and were at the time) either completely worthless or of negligible value as they related to sunset products that would soon become generic and were such old products that they would also require further testing in order to meet contemporary regulatory requirements. Furthermore, MDX was cash strapped at the time and would not have been able to exploit the IP made available in the licence agreements.
The following sales, of 940,000, were made to Crescent in the second half of 2007 (which is exactly the same sum as Meldex agreed to pay under the licence agreement with Crescent dated 31-Oct-07 of 940,000 and which was paid for in equity):

- Licence of an anti-snoring product on 29-Jun-07 for 200,000; there appears to be no written agreement although it was invoiced.

- The review by SM of 52 dossiers for Crescent for a fee of 520,000 invoiced on 24-Sep-07; MDX found no written agreement to this effect either; there is only an invoice dated 24-Sept-07.

- The sale of a licence for Solupol for 70,000 on 7-Dec07; there appears to have been no written sale agreement but again only an invoice

- The sale of a licence for Meltums for 150,000 on 18-Dec07 but surprise, surprise.. no written sale agreement - only an invoice.

This is BJMs take on the Crescent transactions:

As stated above, the First Defendants actions and the First Defendants email of 4 November 2007 reflect a flurry of activity in what appear to me to be non-arms length transactions in firstly the run up to Meldexs half year results at 30 June 2007 and then the financial year end of 31 December 2007. I am no expert and do not know what the Second Defendant was asked to do in reviewing 52 dossiers at 10,000 per time but it seems very improbable to me that a company of Crescents size (2007 turnover was 5,007,487) would spend that amount on an exercise of that sort. The underlying reality is that these transactions represent the same kind of transaction loop as the earlier Dagmar transactions, the only difference being that in this case the Defendants were selling Meldex shares in the market to pay for the turnover it was buying.

On the information I have the financial position for Meldex arising from this transaction is apparently neutral but the turnover and the assets are misstated because of these fictitious transactions.

MDX claims that All these sales were shams, since there was no intention that any of the relevant services or products would be provided and none of them has in fact been provided. It is, moreover, inconceivable that Crescent would have actually agreed to pay the Claimant to review 52 dossiers for a total of 10,000 each. No one would pay this amount of money for such a service.

The total value of these sales is 940,000 (the Crescent Sales). The sums due under the Crescent Sales were all paid to the Claimant

The overwhelming likelihood is as follows:

(1) Crescent was able to and did pay the sums due under the Crescent Sales only from the proceeds of selling the shares it had received from the Claimant under the Crescent Purchase Agreement.

(2) The sole purpose of the Crescent Purchase Agreement was to provide a conduit by which the Claimant could provide Crescent with the funds required to discharge the amounts due under the Crescent Sales.

(3) The difference of 40,000 between the amount due under the Crescent Purchase Agreement and the amount due under the Crescent Sales was a back hand payment to one or more of the controllers of Crescent who agreed to take part in the process.

(3) The Claimant has therefore in effect paid for the Crescent Sales and a further 40,000 and received little or nothing of value in return.

The Defendants engineered and caused the Claimant to enter into these various transactions in order to create a misleadingly positive impression of the groups performance in the 2007 financial year. They did so only to boost the value of their shares or share options in the Claimant and to enhance the prospects of their obtaining an increased salary and bonus in the following year. In so doing they acted in breach of the duties set out at paragraphs 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 6(1), 6(2), 8(1) and 8(2) (as appropriate) above. Furthermore, in failing to prevent the other from acting in this way they were each in breach of the duties set out at paragraphs 4(4), 5(5) and 6(3) above.

As a result of such breaches the Claimant has suffered a loss of 40,000. This represents the net loss to the Claimant on the various Crescent transactions, as explained above.

Acquisition of dossiers from ICE

According to BJM: Meldex issued shares to ICE to pay for dossiers that were not delivered to Dexo (and may never have existed). Meldex has issued shares to ICE worth, at that time, 980,000 but has received no corresponding asset. Meldex is claiming the sum of 980,000 from the First Defendant on the basis that he authorised and instigated the transaction in breach of his employment contract and his duties as a director of Meldex. The only intention in purporting to acquire assets from ICE was to enable ICE to pass cash on to WhiteGrove to pay what was due under the licence agreement of 18 December 2007. The loss occurred as a result of the First Defendants breach of duty and breach of contract and Meldex will claim damages from the First Defendant accordingly. Meldex is also considering a claim against ICE.

Licence agreement between Dexo and Whitegrove Pharma Limited

According to BJM: In or around 18 December 2007 (again, just prior to the end of the Groups financial year), Dexo entered into a proprietary licence agreement with WhiteGrove Pharma Limited (WhiteGrove). Under the terms of this licence, WhiteGrove agreed to pay Dexo a licence fee of 980,000, which was included as turnover in the Groups accounts for the year ending 31 December 2007. I would note at this point that WhiteGroves filed accounts for the period to 30 November 2007 are abbreviated accounts only and record WhiteGrove as having cash at bank of 1,185, creditors of 979, net current assets of 206 and called up share capital of 4 (exhibit BM8, pages 267 to 271). On any view it is challenging to see how a company of this size could possibly agree to, never mind fund, a licence under which it was obliged to pay 980,000. The obvious inference is that WhiteGroves directors knew from the outset that a genuine liability would not arise since it would be set off against the subsequent reciprocal deal entered into by Dexo to purchase dossiers from an associated company called ICE Operations Limited (ICE).

As set out above, the consideration of 980,000 payable in Meldex equity is the identical amount WhiteGrove had agreed to pay Dexo under the proprietary licence agreement of 18 December 2007.

In an email from SM to JC, relating to the ICE and Whitegrove transactions, he says a loop around would be done and "with RTs full approval.

Further claims against the Second Defendant [SM]

Particulars of MDX Claim: The Second Defendant and his wife are the controllers of a company called Penlan Healthcare Limited (Penlan). In January 2008 The Second Defendant negotiated a development, licensing and distribution agreement between Penlan and a Czech company called Zentiva as (Zentiva) for the development of a product for the treatment of candida infections in women (the Zentiva Agreement).

The commercial opportunity reflected and afforded by the Zentiva Agreement is one which the Second Defendant could and ought to have obtained for the Claimant.

Accordingly, the Second Defendant must account to the Claimant for any and all profits made by Penlan on the Zentiva Agreement.

Other Info.

Apparently RT sold his property (~11-Jun-09) and is believed to have moved to Australia (possibly Brisbane). The property, in Wimbledon, was purchased by RT and his wife for 1.375m 20-Apr-06.

Legal proceedings have also been issued by DF against RT but are not MDX related.

the_doctor - 29 Jul'09 - 06:05 - 3585 of 3598

Chay,
VERY many thanks.

I'm going through just now...

Yet again, this character pops up as being involved in the sham transactions!!
"Mohammed Al-Doori, stated at clause 10 to have been Dexos representative for the purposes of the Dagmar Consultancy Agreement"

I sincerely hope he will a) be returning money gained b) do time for it!
----------------------------------------------------------
the_doctor - 29 Jul'09 - 06:19 - 3586 of 3598


Blimey, this is going to go way beyond the MDX claims against RT and SM!

At some point, I would love to see some kind of shareholder group action against RT. Malone, Doori ect. in order to claim for shareholders' losses above and beyond what the company itself has lost.
-------------------------------------------------------------



B J Muncaster - 29 Jul'09 - 06:21 - 3587 of 3598

Yes, TD it is. Perhaps you and others will now start to understand the amount of work we're putting into this Company. But if shareholders decide not to support us, then there's little we can do on their behalf.

tabasco - 21 May 2008 17:48 - 274 of 7766

"..mdx is a great company unfortunately been hooked up with continuous hype. I know the true value, let other people take money of each other to come to the right conclusion. The groovy gang must be a bunch of valium heads!! If you really want to test the valium how about Barclays at under 4"

Good tip that, Barclays at 4, think I would have preferred to buy at 50p :)

Seems the groovy gang were right all along :)

Looks like I have tempted The Gay Boy Potty back.what an easy wind up he is
more important matters>


For all those that want to send get well cards to our very good friend with the comedians name:- Steve and Maggie Martin
Westwood Oaks FarmHigh streetStaplehurstKent.
You can also catch him at work:-
PENLAN HEALTHCARE LIMITED
18 HYDE GARDENS
EASTBOURNE
EAST SUSSEX
BN21 4PT
Company No. 04531929
----------------------
PENLAN MEDICAL LIMITED
18 HYDE GARDENS
EASTBOURNE
EAST SUSSEX
BN21 4PT
Company No. 05247810
-------------------------
Address is the accountants...

Plummer Parsons
18 Hyde Gardens
Eastbourne
East Sussex
UK
BN21 4PT

Telephone 01323 431200
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of our resident penguin

pth - we know. ;-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

'tempted me back'? LoL

I post as and when I want irrespective of the board clown putting in an appearance. To be honest I read little of what you post, you have nothing to add to the debate and 99.9% of what you do offer is copy and paste from the Zoo; I prefer to read the originals.

Your childish insults are water off a duck's back, it reminds me of been back at school, Public School of course :)

Another verse for a special twat

I'm Potty and Nutty I rise at ten thirty
and saunter along like a twat
I walk down the Strand with my arse up my hand
Then slide down again on me mat
I'm wear bright red braces with matching shoe laces
Without food so long and I sleep in my cases
I'm Pot, Pot, I aint got a lot
But my people are well off you know.
Nearly everyone knows me from Cynic to Lord Rosebr'y,
I'm Potty and Nutty from Bow.

Come on Potty .get the Red Cravat and come on backkeep posting my sonI have a bet riding on you

Need the funds to buy an SLN do you? ROFLMAO!

tabby...it must really annoy you that all of your money is tied up in that dog of a share and we can continue to trade/invets and make money...kind of shows the error of your ways to other novice investors like you who read this...i think you are too far gone to take any advice but in a way you are helping others so you should feel a little bit good about yourself and the mess you have made of this.

so chin up

Did you buy the Red Cravat at Argoose?

Trig .stop being a borefootball lad like you should be much more interestingyou are a bit repetitive and starting to sound as electrifying as bouncy I have posted one of my accounts up here beforeas well as several tradesnow make your postfunnyinteresting.or talk to bouncy

"I have posted one of my accounts up here before"

Unfortunately, it wasn't that impressieve, Tabatha. ;-)))

I'm Potty and Nutty I rise at ten thirty
and saunter along like a prick
I walk down Pall Mall with the bird what a cow
Then slide down again feeling sick
I'm wear glasses with plaster, it helps me walk faster
with many a trip the curbs I cant master
I'm Pot, Pot, with a nose full of snot
But my people are well off you know.
Everyone knows how I feel, from Cynic and Bouncy to Dil
I'm Potty and Nutty from Bow.

FFS HURRY AND GO!

Tabby - I hope you're taking comfort in your nursery rhymes.

Maybe you could assemble them into a magazine and get a publishing deal to sell them alongside big issue?

Glad to see your eye is better now Gausieobviously a private operationMaidstone? can you read mummys cheques yet?

LoL

He's becoming more and more unhinged as the days go by :)
Have I helped you win your bet yet Tabby? You probably need the money LoL

Gadzooks, look at the time! Must be nearly Pimms o'clock? :)

Gausietwo more posts today from The Gay Boy Pottyand I would have taken a score off me old muckerI have until 4-30...you see my dilemma.looks like he has cost me money

edit...racing certainty...

If I say please Mr. Potty.

tabasco - 29 Jul 2009 15:53 - 7782 of 7783
Gausietwo more posts today from The Gay Boy Pottyand I would have taken a score off me old muckerI have until 4-30...you see my dilemma.looks like he has cost me money

edit...racing certainty...



Wrong again, eh?. ;-))) Luckily I doubtr he's cost you as much as you cost yourself buying into this at all manner of prices way above what it's worth now. FYI that's somewhere between 0p and 2p, feckwit. LOL!

Congratulations on RSA getting back to your breakeven price today, Tabatha. No wonder you're in flippant mood. ROFLMAO!