# CMQ - Chemeq Limited



## Redwing (20 August 2004)

The Papers yesterday were full of Chemeq in the business section..

They seem to have a good product and even if they aquire 10% of thier market, they believe they'll do well.

Now they're trying to raise finance again..

Any thoughts ?


Redwing


----------



## GreatPig (20 August 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Here's their chart. Volume has been up quite a bit this month.

Cheers,
GP


----------



## ghotib (20 August 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Hi GP,

We've held it for about 2 years so today we're in the red on it, but we have high expectations and no plans to sell. They're establishing production facilities and learning to be large-scale manufacturers, which is like absorbing a takeover as far as corporate systems and culture go. 

We're not entirely happy about the present capital raising. OTOH I have to admit that I haven't even read the notice, so I have no useful comment to make about it  :-[

Thanks for posting all the charts you do. I'm sure you've told us somewhere, but would you mind saying again what charting service you're using.

Thanks,

Ghoti


----------



## GreatPig (20 August 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Ghoti,

Most of the recent charts are from the AmiBroker software, using free EOD data from http://www.float.com.au. I use Paint Shop Pro to do screen captures from it.

A few charts were from the BullCharts software though, while I was trialling it, and most of the earlier ones from the free FCharts software.

Cheers,
GP


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (22 November 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Great Charts GP !!

Are you able to add Moving Averages also?

I'll try your link and see how i go.. As for Chemeq, i expect once production is approved by the TGA or similar then the share will move upwards again, it's getting to be a regular inn the newspaper business columns..last notice was a pay dispute to sacked worker


----------



## GreatPig (22 November 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*



			
				The Barbarian Investor said:
			
		

> Are you able to add Moving Averages also?



I can put up anything that AmiBroker can display. I currently have screens enabled with MAs and Guppy MMAs, although I don't often use them.

Here's CMQ again with some MAs and a few indicators underneath.

Cheers,
GP


----------



## Knobby22 (22 November 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

The factory is built. The management is learning.
I think it is a buy below $2.00. It may be worth waiting to buy till March next year when a lot of things will be clearer.

The big risk is that the price will be below the options and the company will be starved for cash. On the plus side, the ex ceo has all his money tied up in it and will be desparate for success. I am reasonably confident that the price will be far north of the present price in two years. Traders should put this on their watchlist as the price is very jumpy.

Not an advisor etc. etc.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 November 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

PS. I own some.


----------



## CICI (9 December 2004)

*CMQ*

Hi,

I think CMQ needs a little time but essentially have a solid business and protected product. Anyone have any forecasts or predictions here?

P.S. Just always stick TOL and MXI - won't lose.


----------



## Mofra (9 December 2004)

*Re: CMQ*

CICI gudday,

I thought there were still concerns (despite their intermittent spikes) over their long term profitability, especially since the concerns over the maximum production capacity of the plant being less than the required capacity for long term profitability?

there was an article in BRW a couple of months back that outlined a few points of interest in the company for you, if yoy can get a back copy.

Good luck

Mofra


----------



## Rafa (14 December 2004)

*Re: CMQ*

Hi there, First time poster here...

CMQ sold a lot of new shares to institutions a few months back for $2.40, I thought that was the base... ALAS...

I am still holding on tho, I heard that once their plants gets its operational licence (apparently Jan 05) then we should get a better understanding of the stock.

R.


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (20 December 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Knobby

They took a big dive below $2.00, last i saw they were at $1.33c.. Hope they get that approval from the TGA and recover

T.B.I


----------



## tech/a (20 December 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

OUCH there is some pain here!!

Meaning some of those posting on this topic.


----------



## Aussiejeff (21 December 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Announcement on 20/12 indicates they are still experiencing production plant filtration problems with an indeterminate time frame for resolution. That sort of info is going to keep stockholders on tenderhooks, methinks.

FYI I hold no stocks but have it on my watchlist and will continue to hold off and monitor progress until the production probs are resolved. Then I'll see....

AJ


----------



## Knobby22 (21 December 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

The filtration system isn't working satisfactorily. Very bad news.
Management does not seem to be on top of things. They seem lost and incompetant. We need a new CEO.

I said wait till March next year before buying. I was going to top up but now wish I had of sold  what I had. 

Their is still some hope of a turnaround but if they don't get the plant working soon then the options will fail and the company will be running out of cash, prob around September next year. If a new capital raising is needed then the dilution will be terrible.

In my experience, plant problems are probably major and may take a lot of time and money to fix. The management said they had a working plant, they have obviously lied.


----------



## tech/a (21 December 2004)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

I see this type of chatter on pretty well all stocks which arent performing posted here on this site.

Everyone is to blame for stock no performance---reasons abound announcements are reveared--------- yet traders STILL HOLD the stock Even worse some buy MORE!!


LOSERS hold LOSERS
WINNERS hold WINNERS


----------



## Knobby22 (6 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

True.
It's up 80%, I'm sure you are holding it, winner.


----------



## tech/a (6 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Knobby.

*Thanks for the serve!!*


Its only an 80% rise if you bought at 98c 
If your in at $2 then your still holding a loser.
No I dont hold it and No I wont at this point be holding it.
This has got a long way to go before it proves that its turned the corner.(To me at least).

Dont worry Ill be wrong often and so will you.
Its what you/I do when you/I are wrong that makes the differences to us all.

Dont get all Pee'd off because I dont like your call there are some real gems posted here I just dont agree that this is one of them.


----------



## Fleeta (6 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Give us the gems Tech/a...what are they?

You've gotta expect a serve the way you talk...you are about as subtle as a sledgehammer!


----------



## tech/a (6 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Gems.

Not mine some others posted on other threads.
Anyway seeing Ive not been asked here is a tech view.
Serves.----I dont mind constructive critisism I dont know anyone who doesnt.

If Im blowing snow up my own orifice point it out!


----------



## doctorj (6 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Intraday charts show that Chemeq's high was about ten minutes into the day's trading and it didn't trade at that price again for the whole day.  An opportunity for daytraders to make profits with well timed trades while the stock finds its new S/R levels after the capital injection but for the rest of us, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole until there's some consolidation at the new price point. Maybe an opportunity for the speccie hunters among us, but those would have generally bought prior to the trading halt.


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (7 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Looks to me as if it may have turned a corner as theysort out thier problems?

Still very 'speculative' though..hmmmmm


----------



## Knobby22 (7 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

I don't like the loan.  Not much money put in, too many fees and control of the company has been handed over.  Too many caveats and if one payment is missed or one deadline is missed those "saviours" will steal the company for nothing. I would be very hesitant as a long term investor.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Opened 1.91 ... closed significantly down at 1.75

Looks like the initial rush of confidence in the financial "lifeline" might have tapered all of a sudden.....

Not touching this one (if ever) till a REAL positive outcome eventuates.

AJ


----------



## Bingo (7 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Like knobby22 I see lots of risks with the loan for investors in Chemeq. However, as I understand it these loans have been made under these nasty conditions before. Can anyone give examples of companies who have taken these loans and what was the outcome for shareholders.

Bingo


----------



## Mofra (9 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Hmmmmm,

LT downtrend still intact, further dilution of shareholder capital, no clear outline of expected profitability or to what capacity/what sales are required to at least reach a cashflow neutral state.

And now (dare I stick my neck out) another dead cat bounce.

If there are CMQ believers out there, please give me an idea of why you bought & why you continue to hold, becaase for all the chatter I can't work out why.

Cheers 

Mofra


----------



## Aussiejeff (10 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Slip, slip, slipping away to $1.60 now.... 

btw Mofra, how many times can a dead cat bounce?  ;o)

AJ


----------



## Mofra (10 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

AJ,

Well they seem to need to raise capital every 6 months or so....


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (25 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

I'vbe heard of quiet a few people here in the West that have put in $100K + into Chemeq, with some investors it has been thier SuperFunds..I hope it recovers to previous highs and beyond for thier sake..


----------



## tech/a (25 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Well if they have been in for a while thats painful.
Why would you hold a stock that loses 80% of its value?
Particularly if your super looses 80% as well thats $100K to $20K--OUCH!


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (31 January 2005)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

Well, Guess it's now up tothe companyto poduce the goods so to speak..


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (18 March 2005)

*CMQ - whats up ?*

Stock Bid $ Offer $ Last $ Change* Open $ High $ Low $ Volume 
CMQ 1.780 1.790 1.780 +0.150 1.620 1.800 1.580 801,771 


Whatsup with CMQ ?

was 1.60 one second then 1.80 when i next looked just then?


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (4 January 2006)

*Re: Chemeq ?*

69c

 "Ouch"..

This was touted as a $30 stock to be when listed?


----------



## TheAnalyst (4 January 2006)

*Re: Chemeq ?*



			
				The Barbarian Investor said:
			
		

> 69c
> 
> "Ouch"..
> 
> This was touted as a $30 stock to be when listed?




If i remember rightly it was 15c to 20c in the float in 1999 or real early 2000..it has been a disaster and it has been one of the most difficult ones to read....even the most savvy has been left dumbfounded but the savvy would understand diversify...diversify and diversify and it would have saved their capital and the loss would have been used to offset any cgt gains.

I dont really think it is entirely over for this stock as it has something that is real and it sells and it has the patents and there is a huge market for what it produces and hopes to eventually produce...at the moment it is timing but the history of the stock says it is so risky just when it looks safe to go back in the water another equity raising to save it turns up in the waves and each time their seems to be an expensive catch to the cost of the finance to shareholders....


----------



## yogi-in-oz (12 February 2006)

*CMQ - Chemeq .....*



Hi folks,

Figuring on a lift for CMQ this week ..... 

CMQ ..... updated longer-term view, at:

http://www.ttrader.com/mycharts/dis...=38623&u=yogi_in_oz&a=Starcode Traders&id=674

We will be alert for CMQ (financial ... ???) news, 
around 14-16022006 ..... ???

happy days

  yogi


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (13 February 2006)

Thats a pretty amazing chart..imagine buying at $8.50


----------



## jlynch10 (3 March 2006)

I can not believe what I have read in the Chemeq annual report issued March 1, 2006

Revenue $1,415 
Cost of sales ($57) --- very low!!!
Gross profit/(loss) $1,358

On 23 September 2005, the company signed a $1.4 million sales order with its key South African distributor Inviro Animal
Health Solutions CC.


Balance sheet (mils)
Cash                                $41,709
Trade and other receivables $458 
Inventories                       $1,781

Revenue (mils)
Sale of goods       $63
Finance income    $1,352 
Total                 $1,415

Revenue looks like very few sales and all interest income from $41 mil in the bank

Why is inventory so high for few sales?

Your opinions please


----------



## rederob (5 March 2006)

CMQ will plumb 10 cents by year's end in my ever so humble opinion.
The company cannot explain how it can make a profit!
It will only be 10cents because it has a lot of cash on hand, and has a facility that I assume it largely owns and could be sold off.
I have followed this stock for 4 years, closely.
It presently has no redeeming features whatsoever.
Moreover, there could be dishonesty about the "income" from South African sales - I thought that was squared away over a year ago.
Avoid CMQ like the plague until it has an earnings base that is transparent - not likely for at least 12 months.


----------



## yogi-in-oz (5 March 2006)

Hi folks,

CMQ ..... just a quick note here, as we analyze Chemeq, 
a stock which was riding the crest of its popularity 
in June 2003 .... a stock that has now reached
critical lows.

Highest close for CMQ was on 16062003 = 810 cents.

03032006 has just seen CMQ reach a new low,
at 49.5 cents and a 50.5 cents close.

Can CMQ go lower ... ??? Sure can, if 49 cents 
does not hold, then next critical support would
be around 30 cents ..... !~!

-----

Whilst most traders would consider buying into CMQ,
akin to catching a falling knife right now, there
are other indicators to suggest that we should see
a bounce off the lows, this week.

Firstly, we saw an ambush set just below 50 cents on
Friday, where willing buyers sent the volume higher.

Next, this came at the end of an extended candle count,
from the 12122005 highs to 03032006 lows around 12, 
with the price plunging into a typical V-bottom, since
a long cycle, on 15022006 ..... see CMQ chart.

Finally, our time cycles indicate a spotlight on CMQ
this week, around 09032006 ... some BIG news ahead ??? 

..... that $30 million in cash, must be of value to
somebody, soon ... yes ??? ... 

happy days

  yogi



=====


----------



## Knobby22 (5 March 2006)

I think Chemeq will be a better looking company in six months.
It seems to have solved its factory problems but now needs to win some good contracts. Everything is taking longer than hoped though. Price could go lower yet and the creditors can still decide to take this company at any stage. Very high risk.


----------



## rederob (11 March 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> It seems to have solved its factory problems but now needs to win some good contracts.




Knobby
I held CMQ for a few years - not this one tho!
I would love to see it get ahead, but am not sure it has solved its plant problems yet - they seem to have more excuses than a very naughty boy!
The other issue that concerns me is that there is no transparency in its product pricing or future profitability.
Usually a company in the doldrums will release to market an idea of when it will turn around, because.....
CMQ just trots out a grand plan that is not being supported by any numbers.
I see this as a big worry for potential investors.
The good news is that when CMQ does have "good" news (ie something tangible to base an investment decision on), it will not be too late to get on board - and it looks like being under 50cents/share at that!


----------



## Knobby22 (12 March 2006)

rederob said:
			
		

> Knobby
> I held CMQ for a few years - not this one tho!
> I would love to see it get ahead, but am not sure it has solved its plant problems yet - they seem to have more excuses than a very naughty boy!
> The other issue that concerns me is that there is no transparency in its product pricing or future profitability.
> ...




I agree 100% rederob.
They are not really interested in their general shareholders at present.
The merchant bankers want to make their money and the founder wants to rescue his.
When they do turn it around, I think they will, then the merchant banks will want to sell down. There is no rush or good reason to invest at this stage but I am keeping a careful eye on it. I do expect a turnaround in six months but the company has still got some very serious risks and it may take longer. They really need to form an alliance with another international company and build a factory in Europe or Mexico to really make it as a company. The founders plan was badly flawed and poorly executed.


----------



## dotcomm (27 June 2006)

*chemeq*

anybody have any thoughts on chemeq.

mr williams has said all along chemeq will achieve its milestone covenant.

if there was a problem they would have put out a warning ages ago.

support being shown in 30cent range. if news breaks this will go.

3 days to go


----------



## bigdog (23 October 2006)

Danger ahead
Barbara Drury
October 18, 2006

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/10/16/1160850872928.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Electronic payments company ERG, Strathfield Group and animal antibiotic group Chemeq are similarly challenged, Hoffman says. All have made losses two years running and all have negative cash flow.

In addition, Strathfield and Chemeq have borrowings greater than shareholders' equity (total assets minus liabilities), another bad sign.

And if the boss has no faith in the business and hardly any stakeholding in it, investors should probably follow suit, he says.

Poor cash flow
The first sign of a company in trouble is often an operating loss. This is not necessarily a portent of doom because in an otherwise robust company losses can be temporary. But if the loss is accompanied by falling cash flow then investors should take a long hard look at the numbers.

Greg Hoffman, research director at The Intelligent Investor, says a loss-making company with negative cash flow will quickly become insolvent unless it can raise money from banks and shareholders. Hence, rising debts and deteriorating interest cover (the number of times a company's earnings before interest and tax cover its tax bill) are also reliable warning signs.

If the company continues losing money its bankers and shareholders eventually will say "no more" and the company will go belly up.

To illustrate the point, Hoffman has singled out four companies he believes are treading on too many corporate landmines for comfort.

Winemaker Evans & Tate lost $64 million in 2006 and $73 million the previous year. As at June 30 this year total debts of $169 million exceeded total assets of $140 million.

Evans & Tate's banker has given it some breathing space but Hoffman doesn't hold out much hope for its long-term survival in its current form.

Electronic payments company ERG, Strathfield Group and animal antibiotic group Chemeq are similarly challenged, Hoffman says. All have made losses two years running and all have negative cash flow.

In addition, Strathfield and Chemeq have borrowings greater than shareholders' equity (total assets minus liabilities), another bad sign.

ERG and Strathfield have issued hundreds of millions of shares in recent years as they struggle to survive.

According to Hoffman, corporate failures are seldom the result of a sudden misfortune. Instead, they tend to be the gradual and inevitable result of poor underlying economics, giving investors the clues to look for better opportunities elsewhere.

And if the boss has no faith in the business and hardly any stakeholding in it, investors should probably follow suit, he says.


----------



## bigdog (26 October 2006)

CMQ are not looking VG - perhaps the end!

Sydney - Thursday - October 26: (RWE Australian Business News) -
Chemeq Ltd has received from Stark Trading and its associates (Stark), being some of the Bond holders, a Notice of Redemption pursuant to clause 12.2 of the Convertible Bonds Deed Poll.

In the Notice Stark has alleged an Event of Default has occurred in that Chemeq has allegedly failed to achieve a total gross revenue from all sources of at least $4.0 million for the financial year ending 30 June 2006 as required by clause 2.9(a) of the Deed Poll and Stark is seeking the repayment within 10 business days of its convertible bonds, which have a face value of $50.0 million.

Director has resigned today


----------



## Knobby22 (26 October 2006)

Investment bankers are nasty to deal with.
Probably is the end though I expect the business will be a great earner to them.

K22


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (8 November 2006)

*bump*

Keeping an eye on this as i drive past eery now and again..still seems to be functioning though hitting record lows


----------



## bigdog (8 November 2006)

But they never seem to have sales of product

I would not expect to see any action

In fact I wonder what the staff are doing
-- training courses

I hold CMQ and am interested in your future updates

The only guaranteed income is the interest on their cash
-- offset by interest expense


----------



## bigdog (28 November 2006)

For those lucky shareholders that hold CMQ

Life or death situation here!

28 November 2006
TRADING HALT
Chemeq Limited (ASX: CMQ) advises that its application for an injunction against Stark Trading and its associates (“Stark”) and Harmony Capital Partners (“Harmony”) will be heard in the Supreme Court tomorrow 29 November 2006.

Chemeq Limited has requested a trading hold for Wednesday 29 November 2006, whilst the
injunction application is being heard by the Supreme Court. An update will be provided after
the close of tomorrow’s proceedings.

At that hearing, it is expected that the Supreme Court will determine whether Stark and
Harmony will be formally injuncted from relying on the Notices of Redemption lodged with
Chemeq until the Supreme Court hearing of Chemeq’s action seeking a declaration that it has met the final milestone covenant. 

The parties have previously agreed to maintain the status quo until 30 November 2006 to allow this Supreme Court hearing to take place.

The ultimate trial date to hear Chemeq’s action seeking a declaration that it has met the final
milestone covenant will be set by the Supreme Court. This is likely to be sometime in the new year at the earliest.

Chemeq is strongly of the view that it has met the final milestone covenant. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
David Williams
Chief Executive Officer
Chemeq Limited
Tel: 08 9528 0200


----------



## bigdog (11 January 2007)

Todays papers

Chemeq battles backers on funding

Chemeq headed to the Supreme Court yesterday for the first day of what is expected to be a five-day trial to determine whether the pharmaceutical group breached the terms of the note trust deed over $60 million in convertible notes.


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (11 January 2007)

The founders sold out via aprivate sale and the price bounced after his sale according to the papers

be interesting to see outcome of case

Are they into any other countries to produce product?


----------



## doctorj (12 January 2007)

bigdog said:
			
		

> Chemeq is strongly of the view that it has met the final milestone covenant.



The audit opinion that caused all the grief was issued 3 months ago or there abouts.  To meet the financial milestone convenant, they had to have x amount of revenue.  The question is whether they actually ever had that revenue.  Three months later, have they received any monies for that sale?  If not, case closed as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## bigdog (31 January 2007)

ASX Trading halt announced today
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/showAnnouncementPDF.do?idsID=00689558

No doubt update on legal battle!


----------



## bigdog (1 February 2007)

ASX ann today
CMQ 12:46 PM  Supreme Court Ruling 
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/showAnnouncementPDF.do?idsID=00689888

*Not good news for shareholders!*

1 February 2007
SUPREME COURT RULING
Justice Templeman in the Supreme Court today found that Chemeq Limited (ASX: CMQ) has failed to meet the terms of the final milestone covenant set out in the Convertible Bonds Deed Poll. This covenant required Chemeq to achieve gross revenue from all sources of at least $4.0 million for the year ended 30 June 2006.

Pursuant to the Convertible Bonds Deed Poll, the Notices of Redemption previously issued by Stark Trading and its associates and Harmony Capital Partners require Chemeq to repay the $60.0 million face value of the convertible bonds forthwith.

The court has granted Chemeq a stay of execution until 4.00 pm WDST Monday 5 February 2007, this will enable Chemeq to review Justice Templeman’s decision and considering its position.

A further announcement will be made to update shareholders as soon as possible. The trading halt over Chemeq’s securities will continue in the interim.


----------



## doctorj (1 February 2007)

Scary for holders.  In my very humble opinion, thats CMQ done and dusted - there's enough weight to support the opinion that its unlikely they're a going concern.


----------



## Kauri (1 February 2007)

Just drove up the Rockingham-Freo road and I think I saw a For Sale sign up on the verge..


----------



## rederob (1 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> Just drove up the Rockingham-Freo road and I think I saw a For Sale sign up on the verge..



Buy the sign.
It is worth more than the company, and can be manufactured more efficaciously.


----------



## reece55 (1 February 2007)

Well, I agree with everyone else here........ looks like it's goodbye for Chemeq. The chart since 99 is just a gem - from 50 cents, to 8 bucks in 03 to now, a 20 cent stock. To be honest, I was always surprised to see that they were still going - I understand that the product is interesting, but they just never made any money. My only question is why the hell Deutsche bank acquired shares in this completely stuffed company. The other thing that interests me is that, ok the bond holders have initiated the action - but CMQ only have 12 Mil net in the bank. So bond holders are going to get back maybe 20c in the dollar........ Intererting stuff, plus the money will get eaten by legal fees now too......

Cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (2 February 2007)

reece55

The investment bankers now will have control of the technology which is excellent, they also have an interested European firm. It has been tested in the West Australian plant which is really a pilot plant. It will now go offshore and will eventually make them a lot of money.

It is unfortunate that the founder was so headstrong and executed such a risky strategy. He could have ameliorated the risk by having a partnership with another company. He has lost a fortune.


----------



## bigdog (5 February 2007)

CMQ Company Trading Status: = Suspended 

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=32&ContentID=8871
Last roll of the dice with Chemeq appeal 
5th February 2007, 6:45 WST

The board of besieged animal drug group Chemeq is expected today to mount a last ditch effort at corporate survival by launching an appeal against a Supreme Court ruling that threatens to put control of the onetime WA market darling in the hands of foreign investors. 

Chemeq’s top management are understood to have spent the weekend in discussions and receiving briefings from their legal team firming up grounds for appealing against Justice Tony Templeman’s rejection of Chemeq’s attempt to fend off immediate repayment demands from bondholders owed $60 million. 

An appeal, which could be unveiled to the court as early as this morning, would give Chemeq’s legal team the opportunity to have the Court of Appeal test its interpretation of accounting rules and a bondholder agreement, while also giving Chemeq’s board more time to try to find a way out of its lastest financial mess. 

Justice Templeman last week gave a stay of execution on his judgment until 4pm today so Chemeq’s management and advisers could decide whether to appeal. 

If Chemeq does not lodge an appeal and the judge does not extend his stay of execution, US hedge fund Stark Trading and Singapore-based Harmony Investment Fund could move immediately to put receivers into Chemeq in light of the company having failed to pay up on a demand made three months ago. 

It is understood Stark Trading has hired insolvency accountants from Ferrier Hodgson to advise it on what to do with Chemeq while rival insolvency specialists from KordaMentha have been working with Chemeq management on strategies for dealing with its financial woes. 

Receivership would be a horror ending for supporters and financial backers of former Chemeq executive chairman Graham Melrose, who invented the Chemeq polymeric antimicrobial that its backers claim has the potential to earn billions of dollars in revenue by replacing many antibiotics routinely used by pig and poultry farmers around the world. 

But the company has stumbled on the question of whether it satisfied a bond covenant that it must achieve total gross revenue of $4 million from all sources in 2005-06. It posted revenue of $4.1 million in that period. 

But Justice Templeman found a $1.44 million order last year from a South African distributor should not be included in the company’s 2005-06 revenue figures in light of a falling out and significant doubts whether the bill would be paid. 

He also found that $2.3 million of interest revenue enjoyed by Chemeq in 2005-06 could not be counted towards the $4 million target. 

Chemeq chief David Williams last night declined to say whether the board would appeal. 

“We still believe we have satisfied the covenant and we are out there to do the best we can to protect our shareholders,” he said. 

NEALE PRIOR


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (18 February 2007)

Well..

They appealed (and must have a plan such as sourcing alternate fundsI guess)

Would the bond Holders if they got control, gut the company and sell all assets as well as potentially profitable patent i wonder

I have heard a few local stories of people putting $70-140k into CMQ as it was going to be the next big thing and possibly a $30 share; I hope some of these people got out without losing thier underpants


----------



## bigdog (20 February 2007)

ASX ann today

CMQ 4:24 PM  Reinstatement to Official Quotation from Feb 21
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/showAnnouncementPDF.do?idsID=00694877

Includes Solvency declaration, Proforma Balance Sheet and Court Order Granting Injunction

Be interesting what the opening SP will be!!!!!

Any guesses what the SP will open at?


----------



## Knobby22 (20 February 2007)

3 cents


----------



## bigdog (21 February 2007)

Knobby you were very close at 3 cents

CMQ   $0.056    -$0.159  -73.95%  903,498 shares  $41,079  
21-Feb 10:23:26

A sad day for shareholders!


----------



## Knobby22 (21 February 2007)

I can't believe there are any buyers actually.

Even if they win they can't survive.


----------



## bigdog (12 March 2007)

http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/49819/Today-s-business-headlines-updated

D-day for Chemeq with appeal

Chemeq will take centre stage in what could be its final act today as the WA biotech faces the Court of Appeal in a bid to overturn a WA Supreme Court ruling last month that it had breached the conditions of a $60 million funding package.


----------



## bigdog (12 March 2007)

The end is is getting closer!!!

ASX ann March 12
 PDF Size 
12-03-2007 07:23 PM  CMQ  Appeal Hearing  
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/showAnnouncementPDF.do?idsID=00702006
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070312/pdf/311f7xmpy10kyn.pdf

CHEMEQ APPEAL HEARING
Chemeq Limited (ASX: CMQ) wishes to advise that the hearing of its appeal against a Supreme Court decision that it had failed to meet the terms of the final milestone covenant set out in the Convertible Bonds Deed Poll commenced in Perth today.

The Supreme Court had previously granted an injunction to Chemeq restraining the bondholders from appointing a receiver pending determination of the appeal.

The hearing of the appeal case has not been completed and has been adjourned until 21 March 2007 for further argument.

Prior to the handing down of the appeal decision, Chemeq will seek a trading halt
pending a full announcement to the market.


----------



## The Barbarian Investor (25 March 2007)

Watched CMQ *bounce* up 100+ % the other day from 4.4c to around 10c whatsagoingon?


----------



## bigdog (28 May 2007)

AXS Ann today

28 May 2007
SUPREME COURT APPEAL DECISION TIMING
Chemeq Limited (ASX: CMQ) advises that it has been notified by the Supreme Court of Western Australia that the decision of the Court of Appeal against an earlier Supreme Court decision that it had failed to meet the terms of the final milestone covenant set out in the Convertible Bonds Deed Poll will be handed down at 10.30am on Wednesday 30 May 2007 (WST).

Shareholders should note that Chemeq intends to call a trading halt in its securities prior to the commencement of trading on Wednesday 30 May 2007 pending announcement of the Court of Appeal decision.

Chemeq has not received any refinancing proposals since the one received from International Finance Corporation of Australasia Pty Ltd in April 2007. Chemeq was unable to proceed with that proposal.


----------



## Kauri (30 May 2007)

*Chemeq goes into administration
*

_30th May 2007, 11:45 WST

_

The directors of Chemeq placed the struggling Rockingham animal drugs company into administration this morning after failing to overturn a crucial court ruling that was threatening its survival.

Managing director David Williams finalised the appointment of KordaMentha partner Brian McMaster within minutes of WA’s Court of Appeal handing down its decision, which forces Chemeq to repay $60 million worth of debts.
Mr Williams expressed disappointment with the Court of Appeal ruling and said Chemeq’s fate would now rest with Mr McMaster.
Chemeq has already placed its Rockingham facility on care-and-maintenance. 
The company’s shares, once worth $7.98, have fallen to 8.3c and were placed in a trading halt yesterday ahead of today’s court ruling.
Chemeq’s about 7000 shareholders are expected to lose most of their investment.
The appointment of Mr McMaster ends a five-month tussle between Chemeq and bondholders Start Trading and Harmony Capital Partners, which claimed the Rockingham company had breached debt covenants and therefore had to immediately repay the $60 million owed.
Chemeq took its opposition to the bondholders’ demands to the courts, although this morning’s Court of Appeal decision effectively spells the end the Rockingham company’s fight.
Chemeq does not have $60 million, raising the prospect that its much-hyped polymeric anti-microbial drug, which was touted as a far superior, and healthier, growth agent for pork and poultry than the more conventional human antibiotics, would fall into the hands of an overseas biotech company as part of the bondholders’ efforts to recoup their owed monies.
NEALE PRIOR and PETER KLINGER


----------



## bigdog (30 May 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1937691.htm

Chemeq placed in administration
The financially-stricken animal drug manufacturer Chemeq has been placed in administration.

The Rockingham-based company has lost an appeal in the Western Australian Supreme Court which means it must pay back a $60 million loan to two of it's creditors.


----------



## 123happy (31 May 2007)

I can feel the pain of all the shareholders, which I experienced during the last internet bubble burst. Anyone remember Spike(SPK) or OneTel(ONE), I was in both of them when they went belly up. Unfortunately, this one happens in a strong bull market. 

Dont even think of catching a falling knife.


----------



## bigdog (31 May 2007)

Chmeq - the end is now!

When can the shareholders claim the tax loss?

I have lost a very small amount of $


----------



## bigdog (6 December 2007)

ASX ANN today
CMQ  	11:46 AM  	   	Administrators Report
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/showAnnouncementPDF.do?idsID=00792498

Getting closer to reading the last rites of Chemeq!

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the second meeting of creditors of the Company will be held at the offices of KordaMentha, Level 11, 37 St Georges Terrace, Perth, Western Australia on Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 10.00am (WDST).  

AGENDA  

1. The purpose of the meeting is:  (a) to review the report of the Administrators in connection with the business, property, affairs and financial circumstances of the Company; and (b) for the creditors of the Company to resolve: i.  that the Company execute a deed of company arrangement; or ii.  that the administration should end; or iii. that the Company be wound up; or iv. the meeting be adjourned for a period of up to 60 days.  

2. To consider, and if thought fit, approve the remuneration of the Administrators;  

3. To consider, and if thought fit, approve the remuneration of the Liquidators, if appointed;  

4. Any other business properly brought before the meeting.


----------



## bigdog (28 July 2010)

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/7652013/former-chemeq-md-vague-on-the-details/

*Former Chemeq MD vague on the detailsAMANDA SAUNDERS, The West Australian *

July 27, 2010, 7:18 am 

David Williams, the former managing director of failed animal drugs company Chemeq, was yesterday grilled in the Federal Court on behalf of creditors owed $60 million, with the due diligence he conducted prior to taking up the role put under the microscope.

When asked by Craig Colvin SC, acting on behalf of receiver Ferrier Hodgson, if he had reviewed materials about Chemeq's sales during due diligence he conducted in December 2004, Mr Williams said that he could not recall doing so.

Aside from seeing general "issues with Chemeq" reported in the press, the only specific issue Mr Williams recalled about the company prior to his appointment in August 2005 related to production problems at its Rockingham plant.

Over the five-hour examination in front of Deputy District Registrar Rainer Gilich, Mr Williams answered "I don't recall" more than 160 times.

During his two-year stint as managing director - which ended when the company folded in May 2007 owing $60 million to six bondholders and about $1.5 million to unsecured creditors - Mr Williams did not recall reviewing any sales and marketing plans.

Mr Colvin quizzed him about whether he informed bondholders the company was experiencing problems commercialising its key product - polymeric antimicrobial treatment for pigs and poultry.

However, Mr Williams said of his monthly discussions with the creditors that all he could recall was talking about the "financial position of the company at the time".

3239


----------

