Globo Share Discussion Threads

[divinausa1] 10/11/2015 22:39

any news on costalostmeaload?

for me my holdings on gbo was 15% of my portfolio
i will never invest in AIM stock again.

can the ceo and cfo just walk away scot free?

[muffster] 10/11/2015 17:15

Article out on penny sleuth 're globo

[elcapital] 10/11/2015 12:14

www.shareprophets.com/views/16434/globo-plc-update-emphasises-its-a-wipeout-ps-who-s-ging-to-break-it-to-roger-lawson

[ionlypostafterbbms] 10/11/2015 11:21

95% of the ones you 'invest' in!!!!

LOL.

[poombear] 10/11/2015 11:17

Do we have a list of what isn't under administration?

"The Administration relates to Globo Plc, and not any of the Company's direct or indirect subsidiaries, which remain under the control of their respective statutory directors."

[hpcg] 10/11/2015 10:34

I suppose we don't know if the cash was used to keep the company going or if it was used for pocket lining. If the former it really doesn't exist any more and has been spent on wages, buying companies and so forth. Not that it matters, another 100% for shorts and thankfully no further debt or equity added to the pyre.

[elcapital] 10/11/2015 10:25

Incredible that this clown is still banging on about being a wannabe lawyer and legal matters. He is a disgrace.

[elcapital] 10/11/2015 10:24

Nerd, you can see that now but he saw that a number of years ago. Credit where it is due.?

[dalesiders] 10/11/2015 10:22

Loverat

I'm surprised that someone with your vast legal expertise should be encouraging others to express an "unqualified opinion". That phrase has a particular meaning in the world of auditing.

DEFINITION of 'Unqualified Opinion' An independent auditor's judgment that a company's financial records and statements are fairly and appropriately presented, and in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).


Loverat
10 Nov'15 - 08:50 - 25360 of 25365 0 0

......Just qualify each post you make on legal matters by saying that you are not a lawyer and you are expressing an unqualified opinion.

[ursus] 10/11/2015 09:40

Kiwi - unlikely that the administrators wd say nothing for shareholders if the cash is likely still to be with former directors. If the cash existed (and it must have done, and probably for more than the snapshot moment of the audit date) then it is either earmarked for bona fide creditors or, if it was removed by directors, has been spent beyond recall - eg on a share support operation, on the costs of running the fake customers etc.

[elcapital] 10/11/2015 09:25

The lack of information is disgusting. It does not appear that a warrant is even out for his arrest? No one has commented on if the funds from his sales were released. I have to assume, that no news is bad news, and they dont have a clue where he is, or where the money is.

[rcturner2] 10/11/2015 08:59

Good point made by obiter above, the interim results were unaudited.

[owenski] 10/11/2015 08:51

Bigboots.... I very much doubt there will be any return for shareholders, and as I'm not a holder I dont need to forensically examine the statement.

This always was a dodgy looking outfit. Just confirms my suspicions and glad I avoided, very sorry to those who got stuck with this lying outfit

Regards

[loverat] 10/11/2015 08:50

Really?

A legal opinion?

Are you a lawyer?

In any event you need to be clearer. Just qualify each post you make on legal matters by saying that you are not a lawyer and you are expressing an unqualified opinion.

[obiterdicta] 10/11/2015 08:41

RCTurner2-I might be wrong but the interims were not audited, just the finals.

OD

[loverat] 10/11/2015 08:38

sefton

Perhaps you ought to stick to areas you know about (if there any any)- rather than offering legal advice on a public BB?

Not saying Bigboots is right - but he did have some experience of Langbar where as you have none. Unless you are a qualified lawyer in this field you should not be offering legal advice here.

[rcturner2] 10/11/2015 08:29

sefton, I don't necessarily agree with you about the auditors. It seems incredible to me that they could sign off the interim results and 5 weeks later the company is in administration. I mean how difficult is it to check a bank balance?

[loverat] 10/11/2015 08:15

Amazing the lengths some will go to disort the postions/views of others.

I was not 'invested' here. Nor was I saying the company was in a good, neutral or bad position. I have simply stated that no one, bar two or three posters (e.g 7Kiwi, Jaknife) set out a good case here. Not a proven case but the evidence they posted was enough to be concerned about. I have complimented these posters several times on here.

Try reading my posts rather than the distorted coverage of those who are trying to claim some credit after piggy backing off the research of others and whose only contribution to this thread was to fill it up with self serving nonsense. As a result, the decent well researched posts were lost in all the noise and rhetoric.

solanki2000
10 Nov'15 - 07:36 - 25345 of 25349 0 1

For information. People would listen to you loverat if idiots like you provided clear facts and balance sheet discussion on why this or any company is in a good position, not trying to discrete those who highlight the facts with evidence. I hope you are have part of QPP SAG or newly called 'blueshare' as you'll find like minded people in there for comfort and self validation

[sefton1] 10/11/2015 08:13

Bigboots, you don't stand a cat in hells chance of getting compensation out of Grant Thornton so if you want to pursue that channel you will be just throwing more good money after bad. It's all over for shareholders where the money is concerned so if you want some justice you should focus your attention on finding where Costis is lurking and informing the authorities.