TAKE A LOOK AT LOMBARD MEDICAL - I'M IN 2 IT

-->sweet pieman

"Your confidence in PWC may need to be tempered...."
I was stating that PWC seem to be confident they are correct. I am not confident that PWC are correct, for some of the reasons you outline above.

"but all it needs is the publication of the loan document terms"
All it needs is for you to trundle along to the offices of Berwin Leighton Paisner and read to your hearts content. (See address above)

"Note 13 states that the loan is repayable on demand – ok 2bob – you tell us who demands"
The directors of LM who are not shareholders in LM but appointed by LMT. I anticipate and expect that such a call will be made or reported to the AGM.

On the subject of the prospectus I recommend you read it. It is an excellent piece of discovery and history lesson back to 2000 on all the transactions that LMT/LOM did. If I were to be critical of the 149 page report it is that the trail goes a bit cooler after June 2005 and is harder to follow eg in respect to the issuance of B round prefs at 7.5p to whom and why; why Camden felt the need to raise the interest rate on their loan to LMT from 12% to 15% when extending expiry date from Sept 05 until IPO funds roll in (note the 4% felt adequate for the IOU given to LM). The report would have benefited from some simple proforma accounts to show where the cash was coming and going from and what loans were being redeemed at the date of IPO.