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.

At least they knew when they were fecked and went quietly G.

Clubbyhigh five lefthigh five rightchests puffedstar jump!!!!!!
Weve cracked the The Da Vinci Code

Time to reflect last nightwhilst sitting in the west wing with my little darling and sipping a chardonnay the rest of the family were doing their own thing in other rooms.. peace and quitethe BBC news came onand would you believe itthere was this big story The UK's new National Fraud Intelligence Bureau has made its first arrests.
Part of City of London Police, the unit was set up to tackle serious organised crime, such as online scams.
The BBC's Home Affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford was given exclusive access to
the unit as it made the arrests. they assured the public all cases would be investigated if enough complaints were made
It made me think of the times Gausie accused Barry of every scam imaginablein fact he and the gang tried every dirty trick to bring MDX downI wonder if Gausie the punter and Gausie the alleged Director who was saying such derogatory comments about the companywas in fact one of the infamous.. holding a large short positionand abusing his roll as a Director of a financial bb
I remember Gausie challenging Barry to take him to CourtI wonder if he is so keen how? Gausie was scandalous in his remarks to Barry and MDX still got all the posts. then of course you had his posse working for himlovely Hilary was guilty of attacking in a dubious mannera little rich coming from MrsEasyEasy.lookslikealosalotscam.com Dil was on the case day and night I just kept the important posts of hisfar too many the unbelievable Haystack posted abuse about companies on all BBsbut claims it is just for funso that dont count and he has no financial interestinteresting character. bouncy was just a twat I wasted too much time onend of!.. and Trig needs to spend more time with his boynot cut out for this gamePeter your connection with Gausie is a little worryingalso some of your post now become relevantI think you have been a little naughty yourselfbe careful they can take badges away! my Wife did tell me that a man with Gausies ego would talk a little loud a little to often and shoot himself in the foot.ouch!..odds on to get nailed!
Andythanks for your timeand you have invested a lot of time and energy on mdx over the yearsto my knowledge you have never owned a single shareor shorted the companyyou probably know more about the underhanded behaviour of the ex. bodrns etc. than some of the big players I even remember you driving past TFLBT house in Wombledon to help with unsure rumours of him doing a runner at the time when he was transferring all his easy earned to his Wife!
Myself friends and family have lost quite a lot of money with this fraudluckily we made good dough first time aroundand along with the last couple of years when the Gods have been kindit has been less painful..I am racing now! I truly feel the deepest regret for others that played the all in cardJ.B. post brought tears to my eyes
My last post on MDX Andyso can I ask you a couple of questionsand hopefully get an honest answer from the heart ..
What are your reasons for investing so much time and energy on this Company?

Do you believe Barrys intentions were good when he came back to save it?

FWIWI still confirm Barrys intentions were goodand only you can answer the first one honestly..
To all the othersI believe you opinions are now rendered worthless!


All this coming from a deranged nutter that is mentally sick lolmore like a lucky thicko that is never wrong

This should be fun:-

B J Muncaster - 13 Aug'10 - 14:17 - 11926 of 11929

Gausie,

As you're here, you never did get back to me about your posts to the other site when you stated that I had been found guilty of fraud. You seemed to run for cover when I emailed you to ask for your address. Would you like to repeat your statement on here and we'll take it from there, or would you rather admit that you lied and provide me with an apology?

Gausie - 13 Aug'10 - 14:22 - 11927 of 11929

Remind me what the statement was? It's obviously a big deal to you. Post it here and I'll defend it and back it up with evidence. Otherwise, f*ck off.

Gausieunderstand this.you dont call the shotsso you fcuk off!

Errr tabby , think you said you had fucked off so what you still doing here ?

Gausie , ... just post the bolloxs up on here that he's posted / said over his "career" and you'll walk it imo .


"massive strides" ... roflmao Barry . only massive strides made were in yours and your muppets wealth imo !!

Tw*t.

My last post on MDX Andyso can I ask you a couple of questionsand hopefully get an honest answer from the heart ..
What are your reasons for investing so much time and energy on this Company?

Do you believe Barrys intentions were good when he came back to save it?
----------

Genuine interest, nothing more.

I had held as BPRG, and made a small profit when I began to doubt statements by the management.

Once the "takeover" was announced, I started to follow the story, to see if the outcome was as I expected,but it turned out much worse.

I think it's quite unbeleivable what has occurred here, and successive BOD's have to take their share of the blame, although cleary the reign of RT needs looking into in some detail by those in authority IMO.

I believe Barry had good intentions, for both the shareholders and himdself, which is normal and fine.

However, there have been some own goals, and the "forgotten" loan is a case in particular.

Did he take the loan notes in lieu of the 50,000 he promised to invest in the CLN?
genuine question I don't know the answer to.

There was one point in court I did not put into my post, and won't, but it raised a few eyebrows I can tell you!

I hope they can nail the Crescent papers and turn it around, I wish you and all holders the best of luck.

Genuine thanks Andy........Bournemouth crush Peterborough 5-1 at Dean Court...oh joy
Aston Villa 3-0 West Ham United oh dear

Andy - the part that you censored from your excellent court reports - who are you seeking to protect by its removal?

I think it might have been Muncaster's offering of a house a security for costs, which by some oversight didn't actually belong to him. But maybe it was another own goal that Andy hasn't posted yet?

Was it the house Andy ?

As you have gathered I have a really low opinion of Barry at the best of times but really can't believe you can do that.

It was said in open court so it can't be confidential , feel free to pm me.

psss tabby , keep an eye on avn .... about to take off !

dyor . wtfdik , etc etc

"To all the othersI believe you opinions are now rendered worthless!"


You seem to forget we were all absolutely spot on, Tabatha. Never have I met such an arrogant idiot on a financial BB anywhere in my life. You got exactly what you deserved, you obnoxious prat!

All my love,
Al
;-)

PS

As for those you name in post 8486, I've met many of them, and their abilities to make money from the markets is unquestionable. Unlike you and your ilk.

lol Al .... "Dil was on the case day and night I just kept the important posts of his"

I'm honored , say the word and I'll personally sign them and send you a pic of me for your mantlepeice.

Out of interest and with hindsight .... spot on don't you think ?




"Do you believe Barrys intentions were good when he came back to save it?" ....

errr do you really need me to answer that tabby ?

You admitting you got it wrong tabby ?

.... even though it had nothing to do with BM and it was down to me , Gausie , Big Al , pt and Bullie that the IP is and never was worth anything ?

I believe Barry is taking care of the claims made by some on here.imo

Well, My only claim was that this pile of crap was going down the toilet.


That was true!! ROFLMAO!

You have nothing to worry about then bouncy?...

We may have all been better off if he hadn't spent so much time arsing around on bulletein boards , called the cops in on day one and then tried to make something of the "IP" we are supposed to have but hey wtfdik.


No one involved in this scam will end up getting done for it imo but I do genuinley hope I'm wrong.

Copied from advfn , mdx v trevillion and another ... judges verdict?/summary?/whatever , any thoughts tabby ?????????


Well worth a read , some of it defies belief .... 7, 13 , and 15 !!!




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Case No.HC09C02262
Friday, 6th August 2010

Before: MR. JUSTICE FLOYD



1 These proceedings are a good illustration of why very careful consideration needs to be given by any party who seeks a freezing order to all the consequences of so doing. Meldex International Plc (Meldex) applied for a worldwide freezing order against Richard Trevillion, the first defendant, and Stephen Martin, the second defendant. It was applied without notice to either defendant on the basis of serious allegations of fraudulent conduct in connection with the affairs of Meldex.

2 Those allegations amounted in substance to a suggestion that the defendants were entering into wholly uncommercial, sometimes described as fictitious transactions in order to inflate the value of Meldexs shares beyond their true value and so as to increase the bonuses which would be paid to them by Meldex. Whilst the word fraud was not expressly used in the particulars of claim, there is no doubt that the allegations made by Meldex against both defendants amounted in substance to allegations of dishonest behaviour.

3 The freezing order was granted by Peter Smith J in July 2009. He did so on the basis of an affidavit of Mr. Muncaster, amongst other materials, Mr. Muncaster being a director of Meldex. The affidavit claimed that the cross-undertaking in damages was well fortified because the company had net assets in excess of 4 million.

4 In due course the order of Peter Smith J was served on the first defendant and he applied for the order to be discharged on the grounds of material non-disclosure and misrepresentation. The material which was put together by the first defendant was highly cogent and explained the fact that, amongst other things, he was not directly concerned in many of the transactions in question; and those in which he was concerned appeared to have a proper commercial foundation.

5 The application also drew attention to the fact that the net asset position of the company was not as stated. In fact, the net asset position of Meldex showed a deficit of 2.4 million, a situation which, on its own, would have been a sufficient material non-disclosure to justify the discharge of the order.

6 Outside court on the date fixed for the hearing of the first defendants application to set aside the freezing order, Meldex agreed that the freezing order should indeed be discharged. They also agreed to pay the first defendants costs of the freezing order and the application and made an immediate payment of 20,000 towards those costs, the remaining costs being the first defendants costs in the case.

7 In addition, and as part of that agreement, Meldex agreed to provide security for costs which, given the net asset position as it was by that time known, was obviously required. Meldex said they were unable to provide more than a limited amount of security themselves, and accordingly offered security by means of their two directors giving a charge over their respective family homes. The two directors, Mr. Muncaster and Mr. Cressman, were either contacted in connection with the giving of that undertaking or were present. However, it subsequently transpired that neither director was in a position to grant such security. Mr. Muncaster did not even own the relevant property which was owned by third parties, a Mr. and Mrs. Bailey, who, understandably, were not content for security to be granted over their house.

8 Given that the consent order required the giving of security and that the first defendant was left entirely without any form of security, he applied in due course in April 2010 to strike out the claimants claim against him. At the last minute, the claimant notified the first defendant and his representatives that it would not be attending court. In consequence and having heard the argument presented on that day by counsel for the first defendant, the claimants claim against the first defendant was struck out. Sales J summarised the position with which he was faced as follows:

A claim was brought by the claimant against the defendants which includes a claim in what is in substance in fraud against the first and second defendants which, in my view, is not pleaded with proper particularity so far as the first defendant is concerned. On the basis of that claim, a worldwide freezing injunction was obtained by the claimant against the first defendant but in circumstances where there was material non-disclosure by the claimant and where, once that issue was to be tested before the court, the claimant conceded that the freezing injunction should be discharged. The relevant order in issue before me was made by consent and required provision of substantial security by and on behalf of the claimant. There has been a complete failure by the claimant and Mr. Muncaster and Mr. Cressman to comply with para.3(ii) of the order and the requirement of provision of the further security in the sum of 400,000 as set out there.

No adequate alternative proposals have been put forward as to how that additional security would be provided, and in my view no adequate explanation has been given as to how the claimant, on the instructions of Mr. Muncaster and Mr. Cressman, could have agreed to the terms of para.3(ii) of the order of 3rd March and then turned round within a short period thereafter to make it clear that that provision either could not be or would not be complied with.

Finally, one has the bald letter from Mills & Reeve of 21st May, sent after the first defendant had filed evidence and had had to prepare to meet the claimants case on this application based on evidence filed on behalf of the claimant, indicating that the claimant does not oppose the application but giving no good explanation for the claimants sudden change in position in that regard.

9 In the light of that Sales J struck out the claim. He was not prepared, because no adequate notice had been given, to make a decision in relation to indemnity costs or in relation to the amount of any interim payment. It is those issues which, by virtue of two adjournments, come before me today.

10 The court has a wide discretion in relation to the basis on which the assessment of costs is to be carried out. For present purposes it is sufficient, because the principle is not in issue, to quote the relevant commentary in the White Book:

The making of a costs order on the indemnity basis would be appropriate in circumstances where the facts of the case and/or the conduct of the parties was such as to take the situation away from the norm (see Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd. v. Salisbury Hammer Aspden & Johnson and Betesh & Company [2002] EWCA (Civ. 879)).

Following Excelsior it is appropriate to award costs on the indemnity basis where the conduct of a party has taken a situation away from the norm. It is not always necessary to show deliberate misconduct, in some cases unreasonable conduct to a high degree would suffice.

11 In advancing the claim for indemnity costs this morning, Mr. Hubbard, who appears on behalf of the first defendant, relies on essentially four areas. Firstly, he relies on the unparticularised allegations of fraud; secondly, he says the claims were brought for an improper purpose; thirdly, he relies on the fact that the freezing injunction was obtained following material non-disclosures; and fourthly, he relies on conduct in relation to the litigation and the consent order.

12 Before me this morning Meldex has appeared by Mr. Muncaster, its director, and I gave him permission to make such submissions as he wished on behalf of Meldex. At an extraordinarily late stage he produced a skeleton argument of some three pages, and a lengthy witness statement. Both these documents seek to reopen matters of substance in relation to the case which has been struck out. It is obviously wholly inappropriate for me to consider those matters.

13 Mr. Muncaster in his address to me said that three judges had agreed that there was a case to be answered here and that Meldexs conduct was, therefore, not to be criticised. That suggestion seems to me to be wholly misconceived once one appreciates that the freezing order was obtained on the basis of evidence which contained material misrepresentations and exaggerations, and was subsequently agreed to be discharged by the company itself.

14 Secondly, Mr. Muncaster told me that Meldex consented to the release of the freezing order because the first defendant said that he only had 4,000 by way of assets, having transferred his house and other assets to his wife some time previously. Whether or not that is the true reason for the abandonment of the freezing order is rather difficult to bottom out on the basis of that mere assertion. Mr. Hubbard points out that if that was the reason it took the claimants from 9th December 2009 (the date on which the first defendant revealed his asset position) to 3rd March 2010 to take any action to release the first defendant from the freezing injunction. It seems to me that even if I were to accept Mr. Muncasters explanation as wholly true, he then has to deal, and has not dealt, with the fact that the first defendant continued to be bound by the terms of a stringent order in relation to his assets for a period approaching three months without the benefit of knowing that Meldex were going to abandon it at the last possible opportunity.

15 Thirdly, Mr. Muncaster sought to explain the misrepresentation as to the asset position of Meldex by reference to the fact that what had been intended to be referred to was the group position. This again is going over old ground because it was conceded in the skeleton argument on behalf of Meldex, which was in due course not argued in court, that there had been a material misrepresentation in relation to the asset position. Mr. Muncaster did not help the position of Meldex this morning by saying that the net asset position of Meldex was, in fact, 2 million, rather than 4 million, forgetting to put a minus sign in front of the 2 million.

16 As I have mentioned, one of the factors relied on by the first defendant is that these proceedings were motivated by improper motives and in particular by a vendetta against the first defendant. Perhaps the most striking matter that they relied on concerned a paragraph in Mr. Muncasters witness statement which, on one reading, might be said to suggest that he would not have started the proceedings on behalf of Meldex if it had been known that the defendants had the ability to defend them with access to insurance cover. That particular passage, it seems to me, in the light of matters which have come to light subsequently, may not have quite the meaning which the claimant seeks to place upon it. Nevertheless, and putting that to one side, it does appear to me that the evidence does suggest that a certain amount of ill-feeling was behind these proceedings.

17 Even putting all that to one side, it seems to me that, as a matter almost of policy, it should be made clear by this court that where proceedings of this nature are started they have a devastating effect on those against whom they are pursued. These proceedings were not only wrongly commenced against the first defendant so far as one is able to tell, but were abandoned as soon as a serious challenge was put.

18 It seems to me that this is a classic case in which the costs order should reflect the courts disapproval of the conduct of the claimant in pursuing it in the way they have done and in using the courts process in the way which I have described. For those reasons it seems to me to be entirely fair and just that an order for costs on the indemnity basis should be made.

19 I turn, therefore, to the question of an interim payment. The mathematics appear in this way: the first defendants costs to date are of the order of 600,000. If I were to order an interim payment of 300,000 then after deduction of the sum that has already been paid the interim payment should be 200,000.

20 There are two schools of thought about where to pitch the interim payment. In Mars UK Limited v. Teknowledge it was suggested that one should be so cautious as to ensure that the sum which one ordered was one which the receiving party was bound to recover in any event. On the other hand, excessive caution could be said to provoke the need for a detailed assessment because the amount in dispute is likely to be so large that an assessment may be worthwhile. Following that alternative school of thought, one would try and pitch the interim payment as close as possible to the sum which ultimately will be recovered.

21 Mr. Hubbard submits that in the present case 65 per cent would be the appropriate sum, yielding a figure closer to 288,000. Whilst in the present case I think it may be dangerous to go that far, it seems to me that the right sum to order by way of interim payment is 250,000, and I propose to make an order in that sum.

L A T E R :

22 This is an application for security for costs by the second defendant in the litigation which I have described in the judgment I gave earlier this morning. The principle of the claimants being liable to give security for the costs of the second defendant is not in dispute and it has been accepted by solicitors on behalf of Meldex that security will be given. There is an issue about the amount of security. I should also, in the exercise of my discretion, have regard to the sum which is ordered so as not to make the sum one which it is impossible for the claimants to pay.

23 As to that, the second defendant has estimated that some 800,000 might be spent on his behalf between the commencement of these proceedings and the conclusion of the trial. It seems to me that that may be an over-estimate, and in any event it may never actually happen, but it does seem to me to be reasonable to provide security up to and including exchange of witness statements in this case.

24 The sum which is asked on that basis is 150,000, which seems to me, particularly in the light of the fact that already 81,000 has been spent on behalf of the second defendant, to be a reasonable sum by way of security, taking into account the consideration that I have already mentioned that is to say the sum should not be one which is obviously impossible for the claimant to pay.

25 As to that, I have got very little material to go by so far as the claimant is concerned as to what efforts it has made to raise money to provide that sort of security. Mr. Muncaster, the director of Meldex, has told me that the shareholders are, in principle, very supportive of the case and if that is so there is no reason why they should not provide that sort of sum by way of security.

26 Mr. Muncasters real point this morning is that I should adjourn or stay the application for security, or the proceedings as a whole, pending some application which apparently is pending before the Master to obtain third party disclosure against a company called Crescent which it is hoped will somehow fortify the claim which the claimant is bringing against the second defendant. It seems to me that that would not be an appropriate course to take. It is something which is raised at the very last moment and which the second defendant has had no opportunity of dealing with. It seems to me, to say the least, surprising that at this very advanced stage of the litigation the claimant should be seeking documents to establish whether the allegations which they made as long ago as July 2009 had any substance in them. It seems to me that there simply is not enough material for me to say that it would be right to wait until the outcome of that application before the order for security is made. Nor is there, in my judgment, sufficient linkage between that application and this for there to be a need for a stay.

27 If the litigation against the second defendant is to be pursued there must be some prospect that if he succeeds he is able to get his costs back for defending himself. At the moment there is no such prospect. Security is obviously necessary, as recognised by Meldex, and the sum claimed is, in my judgment, entirely reasonable.

28 For those reasons, I propose to make an order that by four oclock on 20th August the claimant gives security for the second defendants costs of the claim up to the exchange of witness statements in the sum of 150,000 in the form set out in the draft order which has been placed before me.

29 Pending the provision of security the proceedings are stayed, and unless security is given the claim will be struck out as per para.3 of that order.

30 The costs of the second defendants application will be costs in the case.