Jump to content

brunosch

Member
  • Posts

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by brunosch

  1. brunosch

    HTW

    In reply to: FGL on Wednesday 16/02/05 02:43pm Hi FGL, Welcome to the world of litigation! The process is a long one. After HTW filed its response/counter-claims, there could be amendments to the claims/responses tit/tat/tit/tat before they move on to the discovery stage where there may be various arguments/hearings on what/which document can be admitted, etceteras. After that, there will be a hearing to set the dates. The judge may send the case to the reconciliation process (like the recent Biota case!) and have the case comes back after the reconciliation process fails. The filing of a response/counterclaim is only one of the many boring events. It does not indicate in any form or shape that HTW or for that matter VCR has improved its case! It is my humble opinion that such mundane event does not warrant any announcement unless you are keeping time on how long the men-in-wigs have their hands inside the pockets of HTW & VCR. In the latter case, you can virtually start counting from the date VCR announce that they are taking legal actions! Perhaps now you understand why I posted earlier that at the end of the process there will be 2 big winners-in-wigs, 1 part winner and 1 very big looser! LOL. or even possibly 2 big winners-in-wigs, 1 part-looser and 1 bigger looser! Cheers.
  2. brunosch

    HGI

    In reply to: brunosch on Tuesday 15/02/05 01:48am Hi, I have taken profit on all my HHG shares @ 1.55 today but I am still very keen as there is plenty of upside after the Life Services sale. Decided to take profit because: 1) Not happy with the handling of Life Services - accepting a lower offer that was increased marginally by the 'break fee'! Reminds me of AMP's sale of Stanbroke to the lower bidder who after settlement broke up Stanwell and sells at a huge profit! 2) 'Compulsory' acquisition of remaining shares (not divisible by 500) unless shareholders elected not to participate! It is okay for shareholdings less than 500 since that the exercise was to reduce small shareholders. BUT what possible justification is there for rounding larger shareholdings to the nearest 500s or 1000s? Having said this, however I believe that it is just a matter of when bidders will surface for the pures insurance business! I will be watching closely to renter. Regards, Bruno
  3. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (k9_ @ Tuesday 15/02/05 07:46pm) Hi K9 & Knotta, Good on both of you to have the foresight and faith to forecast up to 2010. As for less risk- adversed investors like me, we like to see CMQ achieves the unconditional APVMA license by 31 May and the 40,000L of sales before considering investing. Some more conservative investors may even wait longer until the company turns a profit. I acknowledge that many posters here think that of these are ‘sure things’ but the market does have its doubts as reflected in the current sp. Yes, admittedly the sp will move higher with the achievement of each milestone. It is a matter of risks v rewards. Some like BSA view paying a higher sp as “insurance moneyâ€ÂÂÂÂÂÂ. There is no right or wrong – each investor should invest or not invest to suit the investor’s overall share portfolio strategy. Having said this, I read with interest Marnice’s posting on ozeshare forum which I believe contained important information pertaining to the obtaining of the APVMA license. QUOTE Quoting Marnice from ozeshare: Regarding the batch testing for APVMA licence, the Veterinary Guidelines on the www.apvma.gov.au website (Part 2 Chemistry and Manufacture) states the following: "Where there is any doubt about the quality of the active constituent (e.g. the manufacturer of the material and /or their history of reliability are not known, or a valid certificate of analysis is not available), an acceptance testing schedule, comprising analysis of at least three batches of active constituent initially, with follow-up random testing on an occasional basis, may be required to check the reliability of the supplier or the certificates of analysis." I'm not even sure I'm looking at the right information here, but it seems that even if the three (consecutive as u stated on ss) batches are accepted, then additional random tests may be required...we are all in the dark here as to how far along the testing schedule CMQ are... cheers marnice Reading the above together with Jess’s postings put doubts on the achievement of the APVMA license by 31 May. It will be good to obtain the knowledge/views from posters who know the licensing process and what CMQ is doing. The satisfaction of this license covenant is crucial to the term agreement and therefore will fundamentally affect the future. Cheers.
  4. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (nodil @ Tuesday 15/02/05 12:47am) Nodil, QUOTE Yes, I do get it. To be specific here, without going into silly analogies, we are comparing the plausibility of "price data" from a CMQ presentation, with the meaning of "intense competition" in the CMQ Rights Prospectus. What is the more plausible information? No, you were NOT comparing. It is no use nit-picking and twisting the facts. You stated that it was in the prospectus when it is not! QUOTE Subsequently another order worth $1.5m for poultry treatment to a quite separate buyer in South Africa - this is the one for which delivery has been postponed - has been written at a price of about $600 - $700 per tonne of contained antimicrobial (API). This figure is in the Rights Offer Prospectus No amount of John Elliot's quotes, a director convicted for insolvent trading can change the above fact.
  5. brunosch

    HGI

    QUOTE (mercury @ Tuesday 15/02/05 01:02am) Mercury, Sorry I made an error in the first part of the calculations as I have taken the wrong figure of 65P($1.40) from previous postings. The actual return is 55P x exchange rate of $2.40 = $1.32 The correct calculations are as follow: Return of capital: 52% x 0.55P x 2.40 exchange rate = $0.686 48% remainder x 1.80 = 0.864 Total = $1.55 The calculations assumed: 1) Current Exchange rate is applicable : 1 Pound = AU$2.40 2) You have elected for none of your remaining shares to be redeemed in the reduction of investor base. So the current price of $1.55 has incorporated the possibility of Old Mutual bidding at $1.81 per remaining share. The rest of my comments remain as they are. Regards, Bruno
  6. brunosch

    HGI

    In reply to: mercury on Friday 11/02/05 12:24pm Mercury, At the closing price of $1.55 today, the market had priced the HHG shares on the sale of Life Services with the return of the 65p to shareholders and the balance at approximately $1.71 as follow: 52% (share reduction) @ 65P (1.40) = 0.728 48% (remainder) @ 1.71 = 0.821 Total = 1.55 If the rumour that Old Mutual SA is going to bid for the remainder at 1.81 per share is correct, then the price should be approximately (0.728 + 48% x 1.81) = $1.60 The valuation should be slightly less to discount for the time between now and the theoretical take-over. Obviously there is a risk that the rumour is wrong in that Old Mutual may not bid or if it does it is at a lower price! On the upside, there may be more than one bidder and the price may go higher than $1.81 and Resolution Life may still bid for Life Services in the next few days (Slim chance but not impossible!) Cheers, Bruno PS: I am still holding BUT watching carefully!!! This is not a financial advice! If I know what will happen to HHG, I wouldn’t be sitting here posting! .
  7. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (BSA @ Monday 14/02/05 05:52pm) BSA, Well posted. I am not sure why some CMQ fans interested in reading and hearing only positive opinions on CMQ have not set-up a CMQ fan club instead of participating in a share discussion forum! I think Steeler’s post on 11/01/05 speaks for itself. QUOTE Posted on: Tuesday 11/01/05 04:46pm EVERYTHING IS STARTING TO GET BLURRED. YOU ARE EITHER IN THE BLUE CORNER OR THE RED CORNER.WHICH ONE IS IT? WE NEED A DEFINED LINE, WHAT WE DO NOT WANT IS A " FORMERUMP" SITUATION HAPPENING ON THIS BOARD In fact as a rational investor, I love to read negative posts on shares I invested in, negative postings raise my awareness of the risk in the share. As you pointed out, if we can save newbies (even one) from being hurt by others irrational over-flowing exuberance, it is worth it. Let me make it as clear as possible so that even Stealer can understand – I believe that the CMQ technology is very promising and definitely has a role in the future of animal farming. However in my humble opinion, the company CMQ is in a period of great uncertainties. If the company passes all the “covenants†in the term agreement, the share price will definitely head upwards and heads towards greener pastures. At the same time, if it fails the covenants, the CMQ today will never be the same again! The CMQ fans made out that negative posters viewed MHI’s involvement as ‘out to destroy CMQ’. For the record I repeat again, I truly believe that MHI’s entrance had saved CMQ from “certain demiseâ€ÂÂÂÂÂÂ. I blame the current management squarely for the sad state of affairs – a case of needlessly over-promising and under-delivering. MHI’s investment (albeit diluting the shareholdings) will bring in the necessary changes to the management and provided hope for the future. But one must take in the perspective to remember the price MHI paid for their convertible bonds and the massive protection provided by the term agreement. I see that Steeler is struggling to understand the difference between “facts†in a dinner conversation and “facts†in formal document/events. Most person making a statement of “facts†in a formal situation such as a police report or a prospectus will ensure (double check) that it is correct because of the possible serious consequences. It is common in a social situation to state, “I am sure this happened†but we will hesitate to say the same thing in a formal situation. Why? It is not because we lied, the 2 events require a different level of care! This is why $1m/t mentioned on a advertising website is NEVER the same as in a prospectus! The earlier can be a ‘puff’ but not the later! Cheers. PS: Stealer, David JC is a dignified person who sees it fit to apologise for his inadvertent mistake. I have made it crystal clear in my post that I am not accusing him of p…. ; if you Stealer was able to read the sentences properly you would not have made the pompous fuss.
  8. In reply to: Na$a on Thursday 10/02/05 09:12pm Hi, You may want to read the whole posting and respond to what this person had to say about CTF at the CMQ thread: QUOTE Re CTF: Not only don't they have any IP, they don't intend to either (prospectus); they intend their formula to remain secret, so obviously no patents. This means that it is not possible for an independent scientific study to be conducted because it is not possible to confirm that the ingredients in the formulation used in the trial are the same as that marketed. It would be quite consistent with their secret formula to conduct a trial with added CMQ or an antibiotic.Very sick? Cheers
  9. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (david_j_c @ Monday 14/02/05 09:52am) David JC, QUOTE It would be quite consistent with their secret formula to conduct a trial with added CMQ or an antibiotic. Your ability for character assassination is consistently amazing. The parallel is just because that there are convicted paedophiles with David as their first names, it will be very wrong for anyone to state or imply that you David JC is a paedophile simply because of the first name. And I will NEVER say that you are a paedophile, this example is given to show the extremities that you are prepared to go to in rubbishing anything that is possibly negative to your beloved CMQ! The bagging CTF directors do not justify the doubling of CMQ executive remunerations when the sp was free-falling. The CTF comparison to CMQ is similar to the comparison of traditional herbal products to pharmaceutical products. Herbal products have their own niche market. It is a hugh market and not something to sneer at.
  10. brunosch

    CMQ

    In reply to: nodil on Monday 14/02/05 02:23am Nodil, QUOTE This is quoted from the Chemeq web-site:- Chemeq company presentation - 2004 (August 2004). A lot of this stuff appears in the Rights Prospectus which came out about the same time, and clearly I should have not relied on my memory. I am glad we clear this fact up as you made the statement that it was given in the Rights Propectus to back David’s assertion that the $1M/t is a standard figure that was around for a while and he (David) was using a conservative figure of $600/t in his fabulous calculations. QUOTE Quote: Let me refresh your memory. The $1m/t standard figure was provided by Dr Melrose without any proof or basis – just his statement. The fact that this standard figure has been for a while (several hundred years) or repeated 100 times does not make it any more conservative. If anything, Dr M’s statements on completion time (train timetables) have been repeatedly wrong. Why is his statement of $1m/t more credible than his train timetable? Therefore all your calculations based on Dr M’s standard figure will be wrong if this standard figure is wrong. There is a very big difference between what appears on a company website and what appears in a prospectus. The earlier is self-advertising (“what may go right!â€ÂÂÂÂÂÂ) while the later is only permitted to contain facts. Half-truths or false information in a prospectus have very serious consequences for the company as well as the directors which is why investors can generally rely on representations in a prospectus. For simplicity, the parallel is like comparing “facts†in dinner conversations and “facts†in a police report; one is chalk and the other is cheese. Notwithstanding “(quoting Nodil): The $1m per tonne price has been around and quoted and requoted for ages†when credibility is at the lowest, this should be treated as “puff†unless collaborated by independent sources. ASIC do not prevent a company from making a factual statement of selling price in a prospectus! The website statement is “a potential to generate†wishy-washy opinion statement based on 50tpa when they are now struggling to get 20tpa right (and by others account - 3tpa!!).
  11. In reply to: skorpian on Sunday 13/02/05 12:43pm Skorpion, I agree with your views. After a company share price falls from grace, it takes time to gain back investors’ confidence. Look at OEC; the last account showed a turn-around from losses to a small profit, the company repeatedly announced that it is on track to projected profit and the md doing roadshows but the sp continue to languish at 10/11 cents! And the forestry shares (GTP & TIM) 3 years ago were languishing in the mid 50/60 cents, paying fully 6 to 8% franked dividend after the WA Income Tax deduction debacles – GTP is now close to $5 and TIM is around $2.30 If OIL is a true turn-around situation, it will have its time in the sun again – hopefully not too far away! The sp is not going anywhere in a great rush as some share holders will soon sell their spp shares for a small gain unless if some good news come out! Good Luck.
  12. brunosch

    HTW

    In reply to: clancy on Sunday 13/02/05 08:12am Clancy Well, good luck to you too! But at the end of the day, both VCR and HTW cant be both right! All I know is there will be 2 big winners (the men-in-wigs from both sides), 1 part winner & 1 very poor looser! LOL! Cheers Bruno
  13. brunosch

    CMQ

    In reply to: nodil on Sunday 13/02/05 02:01pm Nodil, QUOTE Subsequently another order worth $1.5m for poultry treatment to a quite separate buyer in South Africa - this is the one for which delivery has been postponed - has been written at a price of about $600 - $700 per tonne of contained antimicrobial (API). This figure is in the Rights Offer Prospectus. I skimmed through the rights prospectus and I could not see the information you stated to be there. Will you be kind enough to indicate where in the prospectus that you found them? Just in case you misplace your prospectus, an electronic copy is available for downloading at: www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/getAnnPdf('/asxpdf/20040910/pdf/3msxx5cjlq6br.pdf',% Interestingly, while scanning the rights prospectus, I came upon the statement: QUOTE 3.3 Competitors (& repeated at 5.11 Marketing): Intense competition exists in the markets for antimicrobials and relate products and the risks exists that one or more competitors’ products in development now or in the future prove more efficacious, more cost effective or more acceptable to the market or regulatory bodies than the CMQ polymeric antimicrobials.Where there is intense competition, where is the scope for raising prices? Well, I can think of STI & IMU as potential competitors from Oze. I don’t think we can write-off the existence of overseas competitors. Cheers. PS: Thumbs up – that WA to NZ logistic announcement is a monumental joke! As Jess rightly points out, there are MANY airfreighted goods worth many times that and obviously almost everyone should have heard of freight insurance as stated by Gordonco.
  14. brunosch

    HTW

    In reply to: clancy on Saturday 12/02/05 09:11am Dory, It is good to see the Directors putting in money especially when the share price is under water. Good Luck
  15. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (david_j_c @ Friday 11/02/05 01:50pm) David, For a minute, I though your statement that CMQ will get the APVMA unconditional license was based on facts when in fact: QUOTE gordon, I mean that's when the Mizuho money runs out. You are right, they will have to make progress to get APVMA unconditional approval. I'm not sure how this works, but I assume that they could get unconditional approval now for 15% capacity. From the engineers' report this is a relatively straightforward but time consuming matter. And from then on CMQ enthusiast Neo picked it up and ran his posting QUOTE Quoting his “BUNKER BUSTERâ€ÂÂÂÂÂÂ: The unconditional approval confirms that the product meets the stated product specification(i.e. label) when produced through their new plant And from then on, it had gained sufficient traction to be treated as if it is a correct fact! And in respond to my posting on CMQ paid advertising, Neo had cleverly started the imaginary fact QUOTE Quote: I know what you are saying, but this is not lying!! The fact is they scheduled this for Oct2002, Oct2003, Mar2004, July2004 ... and so on. Not to mention the "Imminent" ann's . Poor Nodil quickly picked it up: QUOTE Quote Let's hope this spares our nitpicking sparing partner, bruno, another night of restless sleep worrying about whether Chemeq was a serial lier (with plenty of exclamation marks) when it repeatedly said the plant was scheduled for commissioning by date 1, date2, date 3, etc. No. The company was not lying. It was - and is - simply late. When a train runs later than the scheduled time-table, no one accuses the railway authority of lying.There was complete silence to my statement challenging: QUOTE Where in the sentences above or in the article did you read Quote: when it repeatedly said the plant was scheduled for commissioning by date 1, date2, date 3, etc. simply because this was NEVER said in the paid advertising- it was something imagined by Neo and ran as facts by Nodil!! Do I see a clear pattern emerging from the die-hards justifying the indefensible? One starts off with an assumption and or plain imaginary statement, and another quickly pick it up and run it as a fact. Very clever indeed! http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/thumbdown.gif
  16. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (david_j_c @ Friday 11/02/05 07:33pm) Neo and David, I think the facts speak for themselves. The covenant requires unconditional APVMA approval by 31 May 05. We have contractual experts (Neo & David JC) exerting that the covenant will be satisfied (ie satisfies MHI) on CMQ obtaining an unconditional APVMA for a plant working at 15% of its rated capacity (assuming that Neo's assertion that CMQ can get such approval is not rubbish!!). Have Neo forgotten his assertion quote: QUOTE The 20T plant was never going to be commercial - last rights offer doc & previous prospecti. It isn't until the 50T upgrade that the plant becomes commercial. This plant proves process scale up and ability to attract customers only. And somehow it is logical to interpret that the covenant in the term agreement is asking for an APVMA approval @15% of the rated capacity! David, QUOTE I fail to see your point. Yes, you seem to be good on the small picture. So why do you post? Given the time you put into it you must think you are driving the price down. I don't think SS has the impact you think. But go for it, I'm a buyer at the right price. (I don't believe Mizuho takes positions with the intention of destroying their investments, but you do. Good luck) Satisfying the covenant is not a ‘small picture’. A failure in the covenant means: 1) MHI is free from its obligations to subscribe to any unexercised options. 2) MHI may elect to receive repayment of the convertible bonds or convert the bonds. Even IF MHI did not elect to receive payment for its initial $40M convertible bonds, CMQ will not have sufficient cash to raise the minimum bank balance from $25M to $40M. Can you see the ‘big picture’? I am amaze at your skill of exerting what you think others are thinking? Only fools thinks that they know what other posters are thinking. For your information: 1) I don’t believe Mizuho takes positions with the intention of destroying their investments. They are here to make money on their investment and the terms of the agreement offered MHI a ‘damn good amount of protection’ should CMQ fails! Where about in my posts did you find me stating that MHI intended to destroy CMQ? 2) I am not as big a fool as you are to think that anyone is stupid enough to think that he/she can drive CMQ share price up or down by posting on sharescene! I don’t even share your belief that Geoff-what-his-name from the Western Australian is so powerful to be able to destroy CMQ share price with his articles! You are entitled to your fantasy. QUOTE I'm a buyer at the right price. Common David, put your money in and post a copy of the buy contract note on the site! Prove that this is not empty rhetoric.
  17. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (david_j_c @ Friday 11/02/05 01:50pm) David JC, QUOTE I mean that's when the Mizuho money runs out. You are right, they will have to make progress to get APVMA unconditional approval. I'm not sure how this works, but I assume that they could get unconditional approval now for 15% capacity. From the engineers' report this is a relatively straightforward but time consuming matter. Mizuho (a bank, with all the technical expertise in commissioning polymer plants that you would expect in a bank) would probably follow the advice they have been given and continue to support CMQ during optimisationYes, turn and twist the words and it may mean something else! One thing is clear – Quote Gordon : If the company cannot resolve the production problem by April, it will be heading for delisting! and your respond to Gordonco was – Quote: That's about right, assuming you mean April 2006. It was clearly not about Mizuho’s money running out, was it? And let us put your 'money running out' to a simple calculations: Existing Bank Balance as at 31/12/04: $11.6 M MIH’s Fund: $40 M Less: Funding Costs: Fees: $2M 8.5% interest from March to July: 4 months x $40M = $0.5M Minimum Cash balance: $25 M increasing to $40M on July 15 up to 30 Sept. Cash Burn: Between $2M to over $3M per month So the cash available at 30 June 05 is: $11.6M + $40M - $2M - $0.5M – $25M - cash burnt = $24.1M – cash burnt and cash burnt = between $12M (6 months x $2M/mth) to $21M (7 months x $3M). In other words cash available is at best $12.1M (24 – 12) or more likely $3.1M (24.1-3) IF PRODUCTION PROBLEMS UNSOLVED AND THEREFORE APVMA UNCONDITIONAL APPROVAL NOT OBTAINED BY 31 MAY 05, SP IS UNLIKELY TO BE ABOVE $2.40 & MHI DO NOT HAVE TO UNDERWRITE THE OPTIONS. Comes 15 July, CMQ has to increase the minimum cash balance by $15M (from $25M to $40M). Where is this $15M coming from? From the sales of Chemeq? Extremely wishful when they have to extent the achievement of confirmed sales order for 40,000L (~$$1,5M) from Jun to Sept! Hard to understand insolvency? I fear for your ability to read and understand agreements if you think that the MHI covenant is for CMQ to obtain APVMA for quote: unconditional approval now for 15% capacity. In the first instant, can you obtain unconditional approval for a name plate capacity of 20tpa working at 15% capacity? What have you been eating, smoking and or drinking when you get that brilliant flash of ideas? David, if you cannot work out the above simple arithmetic, what weight should readers place on your complex ramblings of sales and costs? IF you still cannot understand why CMQ has to solve the production problems by April 2005, I will be happy to elaborate! HAVING said this, however I am not saying that CMQ cannot solve the problems by April 2005 – it is just a matter of investors understanding the risks!
  18. brunosch

    CMQ

    In reply to: neo99 on Friday 11/02/05 01:44pm Neo, QUOTE I disagree, the two are not linked at all. The APVMA couldn't care less about the throughput of the process, unless it affected the product spec. If that is the case why is the existing APVMA a CONDITIONAL approval? I am sure you are correct IF CMQ decides to reduce the name-plate capacity to 3tpa (15% of 20tpa). BUT in t case you still think that the MHI' covenant is satisfied imagine If you were to buy a prestigious car with a nameplate top speed capacity of $300 kmh, are you satisfy to receive a car with a top speed of 45kmh (15%). If MHI is happy with an conditional APVMA approval for a 3tpa, why bother to covenant that when the pilot plant is 2tpa unconditionally approved! I fear for your ability to read and understand contract document!
  19. brunosch

    CMQ

    In reply to: steeler on Thursday 10/02/05 08:00pm hello stealer, QUOTE Responding to sabretoothed's posting that CTF is a competitor: hello sabretoothed, Yes,they would be a competitor,only, if one likes orange flavoured chickens.The only similarity that i can see between these 2 companies is that they are both Australian Have you consider removing those CMQ stickers from the orange-coloured lenses in the glasses that you are wearing? Hopefully with a bit of luck, you can then see that these 2 companies do have more than just Australian origins. I repeat some of the CTF representations below: POULTRY REARING The use of Citrofresh in many phases of poultry rearing has shown outstanding results. These results arise from great improvements that have been made possible in bird health with the use of Citrofresh. Furthermore, due to the use of Citrofresh, there have been large reductions in bird deaths caused by feed problems and disease. The number of breeders brought to market has been proportionately increased and there is a definite reduction in time from farm to market for a given weight increase target. CITROFRESH BIOCITE Citrofresh Biocite is a powder designed for oral administration in the daily feed ration either as part of the pellet ingredients or mixed into the finished ration on farm for flexibility of dosage. Citrofresh Biocite is specially formulated for ease of administration to intensive livestock systems where individual dosage regimes may not be feasible. Citrofresh Biocite is a natural well tolerated anti-microbial combined with an immune stimulant and essential minerals, which can be used in the presence of disease in livestock. And if you are interested to read about CTF, their website is: http://www.citrofresh.com/other_prod/biocites.php
  20. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (neo99 @ Thursday 10/02/05 11:19pm) Neo, very good point! QUOTE I agree. and nobody blames the train scheduler when sets a rediculous time-line. They blame the driver for not going fast enough (until the train de-rails of course). Trouble is, instead of letting the passengers know how long it really is going to be, they as saying some-time soon. In CMQ’s case, the scheduler and the driver is the same person, ie the person influencing the board is the same person running the company (but may no longer be!). Coincidentally, he is also responsible for the company's annoucements including paid advertisements.
  21. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (nodil @ Thursday 10/02/05 08:15pm) Poor Old Nodil, What relevance have your statement got to do with the issue that was discussed? The discussion was on the company's statement: QUOTE The facility was scheduled to be completed and in full production by July 2004 following a dry run and commissioning process. The first commercial batch of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for the antimicrobial agent was produced in August 2004. The initial capacity of 20t/yr will be sufficient to fulfil current contracts but a phase two expansion of the plant facilities is already underway and due for completion in December 2005. It must bee too hard for you to undertand that the author stated that the plant was scheduled to be in full production by July 2004 at the point in time when the plant was having production problem. Where in the sentences above or in the article did you read Quote: when it repeatedly said the plant was scheduled for commissioning by date 1, date2, date 3, etc. QUOTE Quoting Nodil: No. The company was not lying. It was - and is - simply late. When a train runs later than the scheduled time-table, no one accuses the railway authority of lying. Using your example, let say at 12.00 noon, an old man from the railway authority steps on to the platform and makes the statement that the train is scheduled to arrive at 9.00 am and praises how punctual that train is when the train was 3 hours late and there is no certainty when it will ever arrive, the audience’s immediate reaction will be to check the poor old man to see if he is drunk, hallucinating, or having a psychotic episode. (And if he speaks with a foreign ascent, they may even have him detained at Baxter!) When the trains repeatedly run late, no one will and should accuse the railway authority of lying BUT they will rightly complain that the authority is incompetent! Nodil, try to understand the issue discussed before you berate others with your often quoted examples of trains runing late! http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/thumbdown.gif
  22. brunosch

    HTW

    In reply to: dory on Thursday 10/02/05 03:25pm Dory, This is certainly a good indication!! Normally a company (VCR in this case) would have objected to IMU's patent application! However, readers should be aware that just because IMU was granted a patent does not always necessarily mean that IMU is not contravening the VCR patent. For illustration purposes, say company A has a patent for a car tyre tube, company B can apply and receive a patent for the IMU car-tube valve!! But when B makes a product - A's tyre tube with B's valve - B is infringing on A's patent! I am not saying that IMU is infringing VCR's patent!!! All I am saying is that patents are very complex creatures!! The IMU's patent is not a guarantee that VCR's case is hopeless!! Good Luck. PS: I have no share investment in VCR or IMU - just watching with interest!
  23. brunosch

    CMQ

    QUOTE (neo99 @ Thursday 10/02/05 03:42pm) Good Try Neo, QUOTE I know what you are saying, but this is not lying!! The fact is they scheduled this for Oct2002, Oct2003, Mar2004, July2004 ... and so on. Not to mention the "Imminent" ann's Remember the sentence was within the whole context of: QUOTE The facility was scheduled to be completed and in full production by July 2004 following a dry run and commissioning process. The first commercial batch of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for the antimicrobial agent was produced in August 2004. The initial capacity of 20t/yr will be sufficient to fulfil current contracts but a phase two expansion of the plant facilities is already underway and due for completion in December 2005. At the time this article was written (AFTER August 2004), the author fully well knew that the plant was not in full production! He certainly was economical with the truth!! Can you see the parallel of this fact here with the fact that ASIC is filing charges against CMQ for failing to inform the market of the "sunset clause" in the SA contract? http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/thumbdown.gif
  24. brunosch

    CMQ

    In reply to: steeler on Thursday 10/02/05 09:24am Steeler, QUOTE you seem to know a great deal about..deceptive and misleading behaviour….. ........One also needs to be careful about their choice of words when commenting,example, half truth...... a partially true statement intended to deceive or mislead. I have reasons to be confident that I do know a great deal more about ‘misleading and deceptive behaviour’ as defined in the Trade Practices Act, the respective states’ Fair Trading Act and the common laws than the average poster. And thank you for your legal advice on my choice of words. I am not sure which dictionary, legal dictionary or case laws that your definition of the words ‘half truth’ came from. Let me assure you that half-truth does not always necessarily mean ‘a partially true statement intended to deceive or mislead’, notwithstanding the fact that lies, half-truths, and or silence have been ruled in our courts to constitute misleading and deceptive behaviour in many situations of trade and commerce. Neo, it doesnt matter whether CMQ is marketing to the Pharma community, shareholders or farmers. They still have to comply with our rules, regulations, and laws. Even if the article is focused on the project and not the company, there is no good reason to include the statement (The facility was scheduled to be completed and in full production by July 2004) when the author was fully aware that the facility was exeperiencing problems and was not in full production! It is obvious to readers that statement in the article implied that the plant was fully operational contrary to the facts! It is no wonder that ASIC is keeping an eye over CMQ when it persist in publishing materials economic with the truth!
  25. brunosch

    CMQ

    In reply to: Porky Pig on Thursday 10/02/05 02:23am Porky Pig, That is not news. It is paid advertising and it stinks and it arguably will mislead readers. The advertisement is not dated. Statement madein the ad: QUOTE The facility was scheduled to be completed and in full production by July 2004 following a dry run and commissioning process. The first commercial batch of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for the antimicrobial agent was produced in August 2004. The initial capacity of 20t/yr will be sufficient to fulfil current contracts but a phase two expansion of the plant facilities is already underway and due for completion in December 2005. This is less than half-truth that conveniently left out the facts of the current commissioning and production problems. Readers may be misled to believe that the plant is already producing 20t/yr and the phase two expansion is already underway to meet the roaring demands! The ad was penned later the stated production of API in August 2004 and yet it conveniently mentioned that completion and full production was scheduled for July 2004; an event that definitely did not happen at the time the ad was written! Is this deceptive and misleading? I believe that should this material appears in newsprint today, it will be added to the existing list of ASIC charges!
×
×
  • Create New...