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>

Nice to see the usual suspects trying to stir up trouble in their vein efforts to kill MDXit is a done deal.listen.1.445M was raised in the first round1.4M Bridges loan could = SLN subscriptionsThere was a cap @ 500k per creditor in the original loan note that cap has being liftedwith creditors presented with the choice something of unknown value or nothingthe choice is easyany further conversions will reduce new money to be raisedwith the same choice given to the investors including myself. Between creditors/pis 2.655M to be raised this round and time extended simples
There is No alternativeand we will not be moving on!

------------------------------
jeffmack2 - 5 Aug'09 - 22:21 - 14339 of 14398

Seems like its only the majority of the ADVFN muppets who pledged money to the SLN. Other more savvy investors have steered a wide birth. When creditors know that PI's wont stump up, why should they agree to convert their debt.

Jeffa little savvy yourself.the alternative is fu*k all.that might be a difficult for you to work outbut I feel others might grasp the position readily
----------------------------------------------------
longj0hn - 5 Aug'09 - 21:32 - 14302 of 14398

jeffmack2
Its you who needs to move on instead of trying to interfere in something that has nothing at all to do with you.

Cant agree more John.
----------------------------------------------

longj0hn - 5 Aug'09 - 23:10 - 14367 of 14398

D_il
Would you prefer administration ?

I think we all know the answer to that John!!
---------------------------------------------------
Before all the usual bulls*it that follows.here is an explanatoinfrom the main man>

B J Muncaster - 6 Aug'09 - 06:45 - 14387 of 14399

A few points of clarification:

1.4M possible liability to BJM:
In the event that in aggregate 6M is raised, then the possible liability will be waived. In the event that in aggregate 6M is not raised, then the matter will be referred to
independent auditors and their findings will be binding on both parties. In the event that the whole or some of the liability is determined, then that liability will rank pari passu with all other creditors i.e. it will not be preferred.

For the avoidance of any doubt, should a liability be determined, I have no intention of taking cash in settlement in preference to other creditors. If the creditors who we need to accept SLNs do so, then I would do so on the same terms. If creditors who we need to accept SLNs do not do so and enter into a repayment schedule, then I will do likewise.

The possible liability arose from cash loaned to or paid on behalf of the Company and its subsidiaries and came to light during an investigation into a claim against the Company by a former director who had been responsible for the accounts of all parties. All documents; chequebooks, bank statements, wire transfer forms and other supporting documentation, are available at the Companys office for inspection by any shareholder.

Change to Minimum Subscription:
For those who have yet to read the Supplementary Shareholder Circular, following are the critical points:

Since first proposing a minimum of 6M in April of this year, we have continued the work we commenced in January to reduce liabilities, reduce costs and increase cash flow. We are now in a position to determine that, with the support of creditors, we can achieve our 18 month objectives on less cash than originally envisioned. We cannot determine the actual cash required until agreements have been reached with some creditors, and we cannot reach agreements with some creditors until we know the cash raised from the SLN Offer. Therefore, we have extended the first closing date beyond the AGM because we and creditors need certainty about the proposed conversion price.
As stated quite clearly in the Supplementary Circular to shareholders, all funds will be returned to participants in the SLN Offer if the following conditions are not satisfied on the new closing date:

It is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders as a whole to proceed with the completion of the SLN offer;

the Directors expect the Company to have sufficient working capital to operate for a minimum of 18 months from that time; and,

the Directors believe that the proceeds from the SLN Offer will be sufficient to enable the Companys auditors to complete audited accounts for the year ending 31 December 2008 and that such accounts, when completed, will not need to be qualified due to a lack of working capital.
Consent Form:
All participants in the SLN Offer who have contacted the Company have been emailed with the consent form. If anyone has not received the form, then please check your spam box (weve already had several calls telling us the email went to their spam box), and if the consent form has not been received, then please email me at bjm@meldexinternational.com, or call the office on 01223 394250 and well get one to you right away.

Please note: nominees do not inform the Company on the names of clients who have subscribed for SLNs via their nominee. So, if youve done so, then please contact your nominee who should be able to send you a copy of the consent form.

General comment:
I note that the regular naysayers met our announcement with their usual comments about BM & GC ripping off the shareholders, Plan A being in progress, prepping for a lowball bid, and so on. Such comments are nonsense and I suggest they be discounted in their entirety. Weve made frequent and open offers to all shareholders to visit us, help us, discuss our progress and plans, yet few have done so (were grateful to those who have) and not one of the naysayers has made an appearance. If I was as concerned about my investment as they claim to be, then I would be camped out at the office until my concerns were addressed and then offer whatever help I could provide to put right any wrongs. Oh, wait a minute, thats what I did do. Now theres a thing!
---------------------

Places to go people to see.fight amongst yourself desperados.

So he lent them 1.4 million pounds that he "forgot" about ... yeah right.

From the above it does look as though they are really struggling to make the 6 million and from saying they really needed 9 million last week they can now manage with less than 6 million !

Its starting to stink again.

Dildoes that mean for a period of timeyou believed the company did not stink.nearly as good as Jeff of Fortisor shall we say Thirtis or maybe Twentis giving advice.

Keep up Tabby, left Fortis in April

Yes there was a time a few months back that I thought BM and GC being in the same boat as everyone else would treat everyone equally.

That is now not the case , the small pi's have been shafted by those purporting to be their saviours imo.

A leopard never changes its spots apparently.

Jeffbest wishes for the next phase of your life
Dil 7839
Yes there was a time a few months back that I thought BM and GC being in the same boat as everyone else would treat everyone equally
Dil I must have been making a cup of rosy during that period?do you not fancy meeting up with Barry?or even talking to him on the phoneI personally know the offer was made to youBarry was very open.it never happened know wonder whydont ask me how.
How very apt.A leopard never changes its spots apparently.Could be a groovy gang epitaph?

Dil, some leopards don't have spots, but still recognisable as cats.

FredDil has asked Barry many impertinent questions on bbsBarry has offered answersall he had to do was at very least pay a 10p phone callit wasnt that important to himso tell me.why should his views be that important to investors?and why would he be that desperate to get them overalong with the rest of the gangall very strange to mostbut not to me!!

if mdx had a comapny song would it be the theme tune to the benny hill show? that seems apt

If he felt unable to answer the difficult ones on the bb that he so often uses for his own benefit then that spoke volumes tabby.

Fred he's screwed you mate imo but I expected nothing less.

Now Broom, you must now sweep for me
The dust it fills my room
No, trig, I will not sweep for you
For I am not your broom
What nonsense are you speaking, Broom
My words you must obey
Another life awaits me and
I'm leaving you today
I am not your broom
I am not your broom
I've had enough, I'm throwing off
My chains of servitude
I am not your broom
I am not your broom
No longer must I sweep for you
For I am not your broom

Dilyou have asked the 1.4ml Barry question twenty timesremember it is academic if we raise the cashif we desperately need creditors to convertwhat better than to have Barry threaten further dilution with his 1.4ml debt.this imho is driving creditorsthe pawns into a corneror face checkmateof course they could rack up further legal cost in a fight for their moneyonly one winner there and not a good idea!would that not be the way you would play it?Oh clever one

B J Muncaster - 6 Aug'09 - 10:35 - 14472 of 14503

Mike,

You introduced a new phrase earlier today, that isn't in the new documentation. You stated, if "in aggregate 6M is raised" you will write off your 1.4M.

Also, the new documentation is confusing on the subject, becuase whether you write off your 1.4M or not, is defined in terms of whether the "minimum subscription of 6M" is achieved or not. However, there is no longer any minimum subscription, so the statement isn't meaningful any more.

So what precisely does "in aggregate" mean, and what are the precise conditions for writing off your 1.4M?

In aggregate means the total value of SLNs subscribed, whether for cash or debt for equity swaps. In practice, provided we have sufficient cash to run the business, it doesn’t matter too much if we issue SLNs to service debt instead of cash raised by SLNs.

a) Does it mean 6M must all come from shareholder subscriptions, and "aggregate" means the total amount from shareholders?

In aggregate means the total value of SLNs subscribed, whether for cash or debt for equity swaps.

b) if so is the deadline 11th Sept, or 31st Dec?
11th September

c) or does "aggregate" mean the 6M threshold is a total of SLN units issued, including both shareholder subscriptions, and any creditors that convert into SLNs?
Yes, see above.

d) or is it some definition inbetween (say just including Bridge's conversion)?

Previously, it seemed clear what the 'write off' conditions were. Namely that enough money was raised from SLN subscriptions that at the first closing (previously 11th Aug, & now 11th Sept), the company went ahead, so no SLN money would need to be returned to shareholders.

Is that still the case i.e. that 1.4M gets written off if shareholders' SLN subscriptions are not returned, at the first closing date (11th Sept)?

If shareholders funds are not returned on the 11th September, but the aggregate is short of meeting 6M, then the matter will be referred to independent auditors for their review and decision.

I'm not being pedantic, as there is a good reason for needing absolute clarity:-
- Gary and you will now determine whether the SLN is deemed successful or not, and it will done in a subjective, not in an absolute manner now.
- however, a subjective decision, made by someone that becomes a 1.4M creditor if the SLN fails, doesn't look good, and particularly so, where the conditions for wiping out the debt are unclear.

I think it’s been clear all along that if the SLN fails, then the matter will be referred to independent auditors for their review and decision. I can’t see any logic in being party to a subjective decision to cause the SLN to fail simply to have a possible liability (which just happens to be a fraction of the equity investment) adjudged to be valid. Preservation of and hopefully restoration of equity value is the prime objective. Hope it’s clear now.

Sorry, Barry, but on this point, i think it is in yours and Gary's interest to be 110% clear. I look forward to your reply.

Only you think its academic tabby .... you not related to BM are you ?

Hes me Dad Off to an important meeting..
Dil you can catch me on 01474 852240

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

just seems apt.......what a farce

Trig.have you used your tube recently?
rumour has it that you have made so much money shorting mdwthat you have purchased a graphite broom handle..dual purpose?

lol

This just about sums it up tabby and he's not the only one who is begining to get it !

I don't expect a sensible response from you and I'm sure you won't disappoint.





mdxshareholder - 6 Aug'09 - 17:40 - 14549 of 14663


B J Muncaster - 6 Aug'09 - 11:08 - 14491 of 14548

crawford,
I haven't resurrected it now. It's been there for ages.
It's just as much a debt as any creditor, it hasn't been invented. Let's get this right: what you're saying is, if it's a valid debt then I should write it off even though no other creditor of the Company would do the same thing. And I should do so having worked my nuts off for months on end for sweet FA and have taken a lot of abuse in the process, and in that time sorted the Company out to a point where it has a future if supported by shareholders (and we've done it in a way whereby ALL qualifies shareholders can participate). Is that what you're saying?




BJM, this issue has concerned me as well. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of shareholders find it extremely hard to believe that you "forgot" about this money that you loaned to the company, and that it was "owed" to you all along and you have been patiently waiting for them to make good on it. If the company had not collapse, can you honestly say that you would have collected on this debt which for many many years even yourself wasn't aware of. I feel that you're taking us shareholders as fools if you expect us to believe this story. I can remember everyone whom I loaned 20 quid too so I'm pretty sure that you could remember loaning the small sum of 1.4m. Gary seems to be fairly good a remembering his 1.4m! So one can only logically conclude that this is a technicality in that a contract or loan which should have been canceled in the past, was not in fact canceled or noted as repaid or otherwise as agreed, and you're now claiming the debt since there's no history to prove otherwise.

I was mistakenly confident that you'd actually get the 6m so I never broached this topic as I saw it mute if it was formally canceled. This seems not to be the case now regardless if the SLN is successful. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to expect us to believe that BJM the director, and BJM the debt holder, will not agree to chose an "independent" arbitrator who will not side will what's in BJM's best interest.

I feel that it's unfair for you to say "...And I should do so having worked my nuts off for months on end for sweet FA and have taken a lot of abuse in the process, and in that time sorted the Company out to a point where it has a future if supported by shareholders" as you're certainly granting yourself a hefty bag of options to compensate yourself for all that so let's remove that from this issue of your debt which is a separate issue.

In light of the above, would you agree that the selection of the independent arbitrator be selected by someone other than yourself or GC. I'll leave it to the other shareholders to find a method to select a truly independent arbitrator.

I will apologize now for the firm nature of the post as it's not my nature to be confrontational however, as Mad Mike, crawford and others have pointed out, this is a very important issue now that the rules seems to have changed - yet again.