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.

B J Muncaster - 26 Sep'10 - 10:00 - 17119 of 17189

You've already had it. In any event do you really think anything I say would put an end to conspiracy theories? What could I possibly do or say to stop such silly things as failed investor thinking birotop is my son? Or others who already think the assets have been sold, when they haven't? Or those who think the vote to stop the 100 million share authorisation was all part of a master plan?

Don't you think it a little odd than nobody, specifically the naysayers, seems interested in Inghu's insider dealing ring? Or SM and his mate Kennedy (Dagmar/Winford/D&A Pharma) keeping invoices under the FD's radar? Or RT allegedly transferring all his assets to his wife on Xmas eve 2007 at the end of a quarter that saw a string of false RNSs? Or a CEO who claims the Company had been defrauded of 20M but didn't think it ncessary to bring the matter to the attention of the Company's lawyers, or board, or auditors, or NOMAD, or the police, until a few days after he was relieved of duties? Or SM, who as a board member signed off 2008 interims that included 12M of false deals, of which 4M relates to a deal that SM, via his lawyers, now seems to recall "didn't happen"? Or the whole board signing off accounts that included deals with Dagmar, when we have a letter from Dagmar's (Kennedey's) lawyers saying the deals didn't happen. Or how Al-doori is refusing to hand over documents relating to transactions with Crescent which a forensic investigation concluded didn't happen. Or banking covenents being broken in March/April 2008 but not announced to the market? Or SM in emails to the board claiming RT forced him to lie to the FD about a deal with ICE Pharma? I could go on and on.

Or would focus on these issues not suit the agendas of the naysayers?
..............................

Dildont get me wrongbut I think Barrys explanation is slightly better than your fcuking chart crap!.btw just watched a crap F1 ...makes reading some of these posts quite interesting.

Part of another BM post...

B J Muncaster - 26 Sep'10 - 10:20 - 17126 of 17195

arab3,

"That's not the lot by a long chalk! We didn't lose the case, we were unable to continue it because of lack of funds. If for one minute RT and SM think this is over they'll soon find out they're living in lala land."

Wish someone had emailed me.

... and if you think Barry is whiter than white then you too are living in lala land.

I gave him two examples of where he had lied when he asked me tabby but he still didn't come back and answer my questions ... you forgot to copy that on here !

Personally i just consider myself a chartist. as in, read the charts.or at least try to. sometimes i am right and sometimes i am wrong. so why do i bother? mostly because i find it offers me a degree of protection from that which is said and reported and that which actually is. as is being what is actually going on "behind the scene" or should that be screen?
if that "lost" invoice had not got paid, which i dont know if it did or not. does anyone? if so please advise and confirm.and if it hadn't, been paid that is, then lack of funds may not have proven a problem. this can easily be verified by a simple statement. i.e. yes it did get paid ,or no it didn't get paid. who is best positioned to make such a statement?
so lets hear it.
anyway as a none shareholder i suppose i will be informed that it is none of my concern or business. thats fair enough. maybe someone who is a shareholder might like to ask the question? in the mean time the saga continues.
regards
jkd

Very interesting? >

mad mike - 26 Sep'10 - 23:41 - 17310 of 17314

scottie, a technical correction to your post #17308.

There are circumstance where it is unnecessary to gain access to an individuals's account statements to prove trading has occurred (& thus possibly insider trading).

You would need account access for many (but not all) nominee accounts, CfDs and spreadbets.

However, you don't need such access with certificated shares, or CREST accounts where you already know who controls the CREST account (even if it is classed as a nominee account). In these cases, all you need is access to a company's full transaction share register. A company has such access to its own transaction share register, though most companies don't seem to realise it.

As explained in my much earlier visit report to HQ, following a fair amount of investigation, I worked out how Meldex management could get a copy of Meldex's full transaction share register. Thanks to Barry, I have a copy i.e. a three year full transaction share register. Of course Barry also has a copy.

FYI, a full transaction share register records every single share transaction in a company's shares (matched buy & sell between named accounts), whether on or off market, plus all new share issues, and any share cancellations.

jkd - 26 Sep 2010 20:56 - 8573 of 8574
Personally i just consider myself a chartist.
----------------------------
No!..you are much more than that my little peeps?.lol

cambridge-news.co.uk

Published: 28/09/2010 09:23 - Updated: 28/09/2010 09:27
Meldex losses total 74m as administrators go in
Former AIM-listed Meldex International, previously known as BioProgress and based on Cambridge Science Park, has gone into administration with losses of 74m.

The administrators are working with the directors to sell the firms main trading subsidiary, BioProgress Technology, as a going concern and its business is unaffected.
Chris McKay, of administrators McTear Williams & Wood, said: The companys recent past has not been pretty. Its last reported accounts showed losses of 74m, caused largely by write-offs of bad investments made by the previous directors.
Meldex floated on AIM in 2003 with a market capitalisation of 16m and reached a high of 150m to become the darling of the AIM market.
In 2005 the shares were the most traded on AIM. However, after a series of disastrous largely by write-offs of bad investments made by the previous directors.
Meldex floated on AIM in 2003 with a market capitalisation of 16m and reached a high of 150m to become the darling of the AIM market.
In 2005 the shares were the most traded on AIM. However, after a series of disastrous investments a new management team (including the return of Barry Muncaster) was bought in January 2009 to try and turn the companys fortunes around.
Having spent a few months restructuring the business, new funds were introduced from existing shareholders and creditors in September 2009.
Mr Muncaster said: What we found on our arrival was quite a shock. The actions of the previous directors left the company little choice but to pursue them through the courts. This proved to be a highly costly action. Recently, previously unknown liabilities have resulted in the company no longer being able to meet its debts. For those who put new money into the company last year under a fresh issue of loan notes, there is some hope. The money advanced was secured over the assets of the company and any sale of the subsidiary should result in funds being returned to the loan note holders.
Mr McKay said: There is a lesson here for all investors. If you need to put new money into a business to keep it afloat, try to secure the debt against some assets. It wont guarantee that you will get your money back but it certainly moves you up the creditors list.
Any interested parties or investors should contact the joint administrators immediately, he said.
Meldex, via BioProgress Technology, is involved in developing non-gelatin edible films for the pharmaceutical, healthcare and recreational industries in other words, pill-coatings for vegetarians.

"... in other words, pill-coatings for vegetarians"


A world beater lol

what a mess but i bet somone has done very well out of it

Two ?

Just popped by for a laugh. ;-))

Why do people believe things a BoD says. Rule 1 is that they always talk it up. If you can't get to grips with that then stay out of the markets.

Not true Al , subsidaries of multi national companies that have to pay 100% of profit to parent company as dividends are imo likely to do the opposite.


Apparently :-)

... uck me I could teach Barry and his merry men a few things about "reserves" :-)

His imaginary loan is just that apparently and now the sln holders are about to get diluted (?) !

Couldn't make this crap up ...

Eh?

The story is degenerating from soap opera to pure farce!

Andy

'Twas always so.

Gausie,

:-)

Interesting posts from the factoid tonight!

Taby was right all along, Barry never loses


Meldex Factoid - 18 Oct'10 - 19:36 - 19489 of 19567

POST NUMBER 4


So I do not offend I will say nothing of opinion but ask Mr Mike to give it instead.

Meldex Administrator wrote these exact words in his particulars for Meldex which went to creditors in the last five days:


Directors Remuneration for the period ending 31 December 2008 = 959,000
Directors Remuneration for the period ending 31 December 2009 = 1,459,000