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.

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.

Dil
i've been asking all along who the 2 mil from the sln was going to be immediately repaid to and that only fully audited accounts would clear it up so where are they? seems from above posts its now 1.4 owed to GC and 1.4 to BJM. something just dont seem to add up here.
oh and by the way who are all these other creditors whos arms have to be twisted to participate but so far seem reluctant to do so? add them to the 2.8 and how much do we have left from the 6mil? not a lot it would seem, unless of course they represent the 2 mil leaving the company still carrying the other 2.8 mil.of debt. either way it still dont seem to me to stack up against the 6 mil asked for. unless of course someone knows different.
and additionally how much does a full audit and preperation of accounts cost?
if the company cannott afford it, sad, why not offer the existing shareholders the opportunity to pay for them? and then decide afterwards whether or not they wish to invest further? it would settle all the controversy wouldnt it? seems logical to me.if no one has anything to hide then why not? it can only be for the good of all. and it will surely shut up BJM's doubters and detractors once and for all and the company can get on with business as usual for the benefit of ALL shareholders,
just my opinions and suggestion, as always please all DYOR.
regards
jkd

Dil
btw as you know i dont read the so called over the other side so to discover that BJM is a creditor to the tune of 1.4 mil is the first i know of such thing, am i surprised?
he's working for nothing to keep the company afloat dont forget, wonder why? LoL!
regards
jkd

JKDyou do pi*s me off at times.you openly admit that you dont read the other sidetherefore you dont know all the factsyou still think it correct to write negative/unhelpful postsBarrys claim for 1.4ml will be dropped if we raise the cashif we dontit will be used as a weapon of mass destruction to other creditors
JKDthe reason was explained in my post tabasco - 06 Aug 2009 11:29 - 7847.
Now write 100 times.must try harder.

tabasco,

The 1.4 million has become Barry's trumop card, because he wins both ways, either as a creditor, or he achieves his options!

As you rightly say he is waving it at creditors, because if he adds it to MDX' debt, they will get a smaller slice.

Are you sure it will be dropped if he achieves 6 million?

There seemed to be some doubt on that point yesterday but I didn't have time to read all the posts, so that still may be the case.

I would still like to see a full explanation of where that came from, it does seem rather bizarre that it was "discovered", and he didn't himself realise it!

I know he has offered people the chance to go and check it out in Cambridge, but he knows nobody will do that, so I think he should post a lucid explanation on the thread for all to read.