Watchstone Share Discussion Threads

[bbmsionlypostafter] 28/7/2017 16:04

technowiz,

You announced on here on July 4th that you'd just bought 10,000 @ 131.625p. You're now down 30% in 2½ weeks on that purchase.

Why do you keep buying? Good money after bad is what it looks like to me.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 28/7/2017 16:00

Can anyone figure out what the share price of WTG is now in old money, pre x10 consolidation, pre x15 consolidation, pre 90p kickback?

I forget the order in which those events occurred.

[technowiz] 28/7/2017 15:57

that low trade of the day at 85.81p was in fact a buy. i know it was me 😋, 5000 @ 0.858125
also added earlier at 91.75p

volume today much higher than normal?

i bought back in today for the 2nd time. i cut my losses couple of weeks ago. was in from 131p before.

[kemche] 28/7/2017 15:45

I'm going to continue buying more with Steamy/Nicky. That will teach the shorters.

[rogthepodge] 28/7/2017 15:03

looks like a bit of monkeying about has been going on, late on a Friday afternoon

I wonder who drove the shares down, and how

[ettienne1951] 26/7/2017 21:09

A question was asked: "How strong a case do people think SGH has after all its due diligence? Caveat emptor and all that."

I don't think any private investor can answer that since they aren't privy to the evidence to be presented and argued in court. Any other response would be just speculation.

Personally, I wouldn't categorise events that must have led the WTG board to fully impair the escrow balance as "mere bluster" as the questioner put it. There again, I don't have a financial interest in the outcome.

Having once been a small PI in QPP years ago, my interest in the outcome is simply to learn from the court transcript of the actual events surrounding the PSD sale, and what led to the claim succeeding or failing as the case may be.

Time will tell.

[rogthepodge] 26/7/2017 13:44

I don't think Anchorage Capital will waste its own costs either Tom, unless
it knows it will win. Works both ways!

Fuzzy argument in that piece in my opinion.

But then is was 'written' by you know who.

[lydnem] 26/7/2017 13:24

Nicky numb nuts is a kin idiot

[kemche] 26/7/2017 10:48

I agree and therefore bought even more. Fine British company!

[bbmsionlypostafter] 26/7/2017 08:59

Worrying reading for the dunces still involved in this POS from the man who called it right.



...........So if one risk weights the shares accordingly Watchstone's fair value is perhaps (6* 0 + 4 * £30m) /10 = .................?

[rogthepodge] 25/7/2017 22:28

lol squire

[squire007] 25/7/2017 22:16

Time to buy some then ,,,, innit ..;-)

[bbmsionlypostafter] 15/7/2017 11:31

That ship has sailed, long ago.

[lydnem] 15/7/2017 09:04

You arent scared of making a fool of yourself are you numb nuts!

[rogthepodge] 14/7/2017 22:23

Law lord please

not interested in Master of the rolls

well Googled by the way

[dalesiders] 14/7/2017 21:49

Etienne

Don't mix it with Nicky Numbnuts. He expects to be appointed Master of the Rolls when Sir Terence Etherton packs it in. He has one off the greatest legal minds of our time. He knows a fraud when he sees one!

[ettienne1951] 14/7/2017 19:27

The Fraud Act 2006 deals with the criminal law.

Civil claims for misrepresentation are governed by both the common law and the Misrepresentation Act 1967. This is a civil claim - presumably to seek substantial damages.

The false statement may be made innocently, negligently or fraudulently.

An actionable misrepresentation entitles the innocent party to rescind the contract unless the court determines otherwise, though it may award damages in lieu of rescission. Damages are also available where the misrepresentation has caused the innocent party loss.

I've already given you some fraudulent misrepresentation civil caselaw, albeit not recent. For some more recent:

Eco 3 Capital Ltd and others v Ludsin Overseas Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 413. The Claimants succeeded. The Defendants appealed judgement but the appeal failed in the Court of Appeal.

Sears & Anor v Minco Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 433 (Ch) (04 March 2016). The Claimants failed in their claim.

Sear v Kingfisher Builders (a firm) (No 3) [2013] EWHC 21. The Claimants succeeded.

[rogthepodge] 14/7/2017 13:09

Etienne please can you explain where precedents for 'fraudulent misrepresentation'
are to be found, if not the Fraud Act 2006?

[ettienne1951] 14/7/2017 05:17

By 'independent judge' I was differentiating from lay people who also make judgements and express their opinions.

It's the law of tort that is relevant.

This is a 'Civil Claim' (emphasis added) that's been brought by one body corporate against another in order to rescind the contract and to obtain specified damages. The 'Fraud Act 2006' doesn't provide an injured party with such a remedy.

[rogthepodge] 13/7/2017 21:27

all judges are independent

wouldn't be much point if they weren't!

fraudulent misrepresentation results from section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, so can you explain the relevance of these older common law cases Etienne, please?

[ettienne1951] 13/7/2017 21:13

As previously stated, an independent judge will decide the case within the framework of the law, based upon the evidence presented and contested.

Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158

East v Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 733