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.

surely they are breaking rules by posting that kind of stuff...never seen anything like it

so 1.8M cash not enough to tide them over by a long way...wonder how much they need? 5M....10M?

looks to me like the company is completely worthless...tabby your money is gone i am afraid

380k for an inexperienced CEO?!? Cor blimey, I'll do it for 250k. And I've got experience and everything. Or is it that inexperience is a required quality for the job?

Doesn't matter how much they pay 'em; they'd be unemployed soon after taking the job on. LOL!

Interesting numbers being put forward as working capital. Now we know why the KKs got so little for their shares just to tide them over.

Methinks this is a dead duck now.

Yes - that's how it struck me.

The only hope they seem to have is if the Mad Munc is overegging it for his own ends. Something I wouldn't discount entirely.

Maybe 1.8m is enough for MDX, but not for the Mad Munc?

What you missed Gausie was that Saturday BM claimed the other plan was dead and his was the only one left.

The other guys then posted that this was not the case and all but said BM was lying ... bit like the judge said in his court case.

Another thing I can't understand is all those claiming that mdx has left them skint , bankrupt and unable to afford xmas presents.

Unless they borrowed the money to invest in the first place then thats crap.

Thanks Dil - I'm sure I missed a whole load more too.

So - Mad Munc's revelation of the inghu plan - was that to demonstrate it was dead? Do you know if he has revealed anything of his own plan yet? Have the other party disputed his summary of their plan?

One of the most fascinating train wrecks I've ever seen. Compulsive viewing, if only they could hire a decent editor.

Was thinking just the same, gorgeous.
But then again - they were all banking on banking by now weren't they.

Funny you should say that G - I was just about to do that :)

I thought it might provide a little continuity to extract a few posts from the other side. And no, I didn't spend much time reading miles of drivel, just made note of a few posts over the last week or so.

Another thing is that today Barry has revealed that he was against Inghu's guy being appointed for a year and was willing to comprise and pay him 30k a month for three months , Inghu's side rejected it.

Barry has since been adamant that this is not the right guy for the job ..... err so why the fcuk was he willing to accept him on a 3 month trial basis at 30k a month ???

Be interested to hear your spin on things as a holder tabby .

Dil - I saw that post from Munc - it looked more to me like he was trying to test the waters - "you say its non negotiable, but how about 10k a month? 20k? 30k?" - i dont think he was actually about to support the 30k a month option, just looking for acceptance that all things are negotiable.

Did you see the BDO report Gausie ?

Appears everyone had their finger in the pie right from the start , always said the whole bloody lot stunk from the first time I looked at them in 2004.

Here we go :

BDO Report

wow - the usual suspects. And the Mad Munc appears to be kayser soze.

Ok, I'll start with this (there's plenty more earlier along the same lines):

Mufprat - 11 Dec'08 - 23:01 - 21182


BTL SEC 10KSB Filing Dec 2001

Directors and senior management costs

For 2001, directors and senior management costs were $1,500,708 compared with $1,533,528 in 2000. The latter included the $150,000 management charge referred to in the paragraph below and bonus amounts totaling approximately $350,000, which were not expenses in 2001. From July 1, 2001, the salaries of directors were cut by two thirds and all bonus provisions reversed for a period of twelve months, at which time the salaries will be reviewed again.

Management charges- Management charges payable to Jade ceased on March 31, 2000. During the first quarter of 2000, management charges of $150,000 were
paid but none were paid in the second quarter of 2000 and thereafter.

As requested MR Muncaster, indeed you are correct, but you all still took $1.5M out of a company that made a $6.5M loss for the year. I guess it was all getting a bit too embarrassing?



Wheelbrace1 - 11 Dec'08 - 23:01 - 21183


Mufprat - 11 Dec'08 - 22:44 - 21175 of 21181
my research has shown the same and worse


Mufprat - 11 Dec'08 - 23:06 - 21184


Alfynn, as far as I'm concerned I'm doing what is right for me and that is attempting to counter this pathetic scenario where BJM is seen riding to the rescue of the company. I'm afraid I do not have the resources to do much else.

Following post 5163 here, I posted an extract on the other side, specifically because I thought it worth highlighting BJ's mendacity - which after all, had been summed up in a judgment.


Dottle - 12 Dec'08 - 01:29 - 21203


Fascinated to keep reading about threats of investigation and prosecution for market abuse here - and I've skipped through nearly 9k's worth of posts since I last looked in.

Here's an extract from something mentioned earlier that ended up on a BPRG thread on moneymorning, some four and a half years ago, having originally been posted over here. Don't know who the original author is, but there are plenty of references to what certainly is in the public domain:



Firstly Bioprogress was started after Barry Muncaster had finished his 7 year ban to be a director of a company, imposed upon him for conduct in Tansoft Ltd. (see Butterworths Company Law Cases Ch D pages 339-358 Judge Warner 18-20, 24-26 July, Oct 1 1990. The outcome of this business enterprise was described as follows in the Bioprogress Annual Report, 2002 ; [Barry Muncaster] is a co-founder and served as Chief Executive Officer, of Oric Products International Limited, which, within three years of its start-up, manufactured and sold in excess of 300,000 personal computers, achieving annual sales revenues in excess of $45,000,000 prior to its sale in 1983 to an investment company quoted on the London Stock Exchange.

Some of the charges made against him at that time related to the fact that no accounts for Tansoft had ever been audited or filed, and that Crown moneys (that is, debts to the Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise) had not been paid. However, there were more serious allegations relating to the way in which related companies dealt with each other, and in relation to a flat in Spain bought with Tansofts money. When one of the related companies could not trade out of its financial difficulties, its assets were sold to another company in which Barry Muncaster had an interest, and in circumstances in which it was unlikely that it would receive payment for the assets.

I quote from the judgment (Re Tansoft, 1990):



About Mr Muncasters own evidence I must say this. He is obviously an intelligent man, and his familiarity with the mass of documents before the court was impressive. He conducted his case correctly and, if I may say so, with skill. But I did not believe everything he said. It was among other things noticeable how, more than once, his version of events changed materially as he was pressed in cross-examination.



Bioprogress had a history of related company transactions while it was incorporated in the US. This is a legacy from the past, as is evident from looking at the tangled mass of Oric, Tansoft, and other transactions. Of one such transaction the judgment states:

Mr Newey put this episode forward as an instance of Mr Muncaster failing to distinguish between different companies interests. I think he was right, but I would express it more bluntly. I think that it was another instance of Mr Muncaster being a party to a misapplication of Tansofts funds.


And this fella picked up on it:


mad mike - 12 Dec'08 - 02:58 - 21207


Dottle, that stuff about Barry isn't new, though some on here may not know about it. I assume it was amongst the reasons that Barry stepped down from an Executive role when Bioprogress got publicly floated on AIM.

Also, I wasn't over impressed by Barry's evidence on 'double' (& differing) diary notes in the SEO v BPRG patent court case.

For all those reasons I have not supported people wanting to put Barry on Meldex's Board. IMHO, fine (actually good), to have Barry as a company advisor, but not have him on the BOD.

However, Barry is clearly street wise, despite sometimes sailing a bit close to the wind (though I bet Branson did as well). I think we need a street wise person on our side at this time, provided we can be confident he is pulling in the same direction as ourselves (& he appears to be). Barry also needs to take care about inadvertently supplying misinformation to several of his numpty followers, and get them to stop trashing honest people like Lexuss2 and Inghu. It is the actions of these numpties that are threatening to divide the Shareholders, not the actions of Lexuss2 & Inghu, IMHO.

Currently I believe, Barry and PI's interests are aligned. If Barry were to screw the PIs at this stage, he, and his followers would never, ever get another LSE float away again. I suspect that would be a big threat to their future financial well-being. PIs hurt by any bad action here, would make sure any such float is torpeoded, before it ever got past the planning stage. I'm sure Barry knows this, and will make sure he doesn't f*ck up, or screw the PIs.

So I say, let all PIs try to work with Barry, and have him as a company advisor after all this gets sorted, but not have him, or any of his followers on the Board. Any non-Exec Board member needs to be whiter than white, and untainted by the past.

From what I know of John Wall(spacecowboy3), I would support djpreston's suggestion of puting John on the Board, though I don't know if John would be interested. John is bright, thoughtful, analytical, strategic and knows the industry, plus looks to have integrity. Not many of them about!


This was noteworthy, where BJ was defending himself for the second time the following morning, with regard to misinterpreting an email expressing intent to call an EGM, which had just about panicked the whole BB. I have emphasised the bit that made me giggle the most - the fact that he flatters himself that we've been 'prompted to trash' him! :


B J Muncaster - 12 Dec'08 - 09:47 - 21354


Mad Mike,

Come on Mike, do you think for one minute that I was posting solely on the words in the email?

You say call off my numpties. How about the performance of the other side's numpties? Can you not see what's going on here?

It's common knowledge that Hambi has had severe personal problems this year. Do you think, amongst all his other issues, he suddenly thought to himself I wonder if the KKs still have the same number of shares as issued to them eighteen months ago? My guess is he was prompted.

Do you think it a coincident that a new alias pops up and discloses confidential information about the closure of Tampa? My guess is he was prompted.

Do you think it a coincident that someone who we know is close to RT pops up and disclosed confidential information about the disposal of the Dexo France business unit? My guess is he was prompted.

Do you think it a coincident that new aliases appear trashing me without disclosing their names, their shareholdings (if any), and their proposals to help the Company? My guess is they're prompted.

Too any coincidents for my liking.


Next, the serial question that has never been answered:


Mufprat - 12 Dec'08 - 10:32 - 21393


B J Muncaster - 12 Dec'08 - 09:47 - 21354 of 21387
Do you think it a coincident that new aliases appear trashing me without disclosing their names, their shareholdings (if any),.........

And what exactly is your personal shareholding? A question you seem reluctant to answer.


Finally, (and this must have taken him a while to, err, cobble together) a 'definitive' reply from BJ:


B J Muncaster - 12 Dec'08 - 11:23 - 21427


Im very grateful for the kind words of support, both in respect of the attacks against me and against the work Im doing with Gary Cressman.

I find it somewhat bizarre that a few posters such as Mufprat, Wheelbrace and Helen Troy, all posters about whom we know nothing no name, no idea about shareholding, no idea about plans to help the Company can come on here and attempt to disrupt my efforts when (a) they dont know what Im doing, and (b) they know nothing about the true state of affairs of the Company.

A few points:

The extract from JMs email is genuine. I will not post the entire email because it contained some confidential information. The extract posted is not confidential and not subject of the CDA because (a) the information was available to other persons not subject of a CDA, and (b) a provision of the CDA is that information that enters the public domain via any source not subject of a CDA is not confidential.

Any person who doubts the accuracy of the extract should contact the Companys IR people and ask for confirmation. If they in any way deny it, then I will post the entire email as I would be entitled to do in defence of being called a liar.

No matter how thin the pancake it always has two sides. You decide if my detractors are giving both sides of the story.

With regard to Jade, Jade paid virtually all bills including all employee salaries for BTL (and BTII) at the time those companies were potless and the current outstanding balance owed to Jade is in excess of 1 million; this is the net cash position for all inter-co transactions. Just because I havent claimed it does not mean it isnt owed. And before anyone asks, the Company was made aware of this prior to expiry of the SOL. All supporting documents - ledgers, chequebooks, wire transfer forms are with the Companys lawyers. In addition, the numbers quoted from 2000 were in the main not paid, and ultimately were converted into shares at a price above market. So, aliases, thanks for reminding me of the outstanding debt. Perhaps I should now make claim on the Company, is that what you want?

With regard to the old Tansoft stuff, its all in the public domain and known to all PIs who invested in BPRG in the early days, and to anyone else who cared to ask. Its been posted all over bulletin bards many times. Again, there are always two sides to everything and only one side is referenced by the aliases.

What theyve failed to point out is:

At the time I was absolutely potless and had no legal representation, none, no solicitor, no counsel. I represented myself in the High Court for ten days and against me was counsel, junior counsel, and more lawyers from the DT I than one could count on one hand.

Had the aliases posted the full comments from Judge Warner you would have seen that at the beginning he offered me an adjournment because I had failed to give the required 28 days notice to my former co-directors, each of whom had filed an affidavit. Their affidavits placed all blame on me. I had given them 21 days notice. My response to the offer of an adjournment was were all here so we may as well get on with it. In Judge Warners judgment, he says, roughly, that Mr Muncaster was probably unaware of the consequences of refusing an adjournment. Unless witnesses are cross examined under oath, I have no alternative but to accept their affidavits as the truth. In other words, once Id given up the opportunity to cross examination witnesses I had no means of challenging their evidence even though I was in possession of evidence that would have rebutted their statements. I thought, mistakenly, that I could introduce evidence to rebut their statements. Not so.

This point of law may not be known to most people, but it is to me now and I paid a high price for that particular piece of my education.

As an aside, and just to show how things can change over time, at the time UK companies were pioneering work in the PC market, and we were at the front of it for a while, the accountancy profession couldnt understand the value of software. They couldnt get their heads around the fact that an 8 disk and a printout could have enormous commercial value. You have to realise that at that time I had bought the first ever exclusive license to use Microsoft software sold outside the US for an all-up one-time fee of $25,000. In fact, the fee was payable in four equal instalments and a term of the license was that if we found a bug the next instalment would not become payable until the bug was fixed. We found a bug in the AND statement after paying only the first instalment of $6,250, at home I have a letter from Paul Allen saying were aware of that bug and Bill is working on it right now. The bug was never fixed and we never paid another cent to Microsoft. The software was embedded in 350,000 PCs. At the time I bought the license Microsofts turnover was $1.6M.

One of the primary causes for the failure of Tansoft was the refusal of our auditors to sign-off its accounts with value attributed to our software. We had our software in the balance sheet at cost (at the time totalling around 250,000), the auditors insisted it had zero value. The write-down in our assets caused us to breach our banking covenants and the rest is history. Within eighteen months the accountancy profession caught up with the real world and agreed that software did have some value.

So, I am not the least bit concerned about what others may have to say about me. But I am concerned that they are trying to detract from efforts to save the Company for the benefit of all shareholders (and yes Mufpart, that does include me because I do own shares). After all is said and done, thats why were here at least why Im here.

Beans on toast next :)

Diljust enjoying the momentknow need to post!