Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Assetco LSE:ASTO London Ordinary Share GB00B42VYZ16 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 395.00p 370.00p 420.00p 395.00p 385.00p 395.00p 0 14:00:06
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Support Services 24.9 2.2 17.8 22.2 4.82

Assetco Share Discussion Threads

Showing 2226 to 2248 of 2250 messages
Chat Pages: 90  89  88  87  86  85  84  83  82  81  80  79  Older
It is being held now, but will take weeks for decision
I have sold half my holding into the rising price just to reduce my average price to around the level of NCA. I don't intend to sell the rest until the outcome of their litigation is known. Does anyone know when the case is due to be heard?
They do have a case but having consulted with a barrister who is involved in this field (and without access to all the facts), there are few precedents where auditors and lawyers have been successfully sued. w1
This is the test for this case. As such ASTO will have to prove that this was an advice case, which looks like a high test. Lawyers only draft legal agreements and auditors prepare report and accounts. The SAAMCo principle In delivering the sole judgment, Lord Sumption considered the development and application of the SAAMCo principle, as well as what he described as the various misunderstandings in relation to it. The key points emerging from his analysis are as follows: The SAAMCo principle is a general principle of the law of damages, which requires an analysis of the scope of the professional's duty to protect their client against risks associated with a transaction. It is not a matter of causation. The principle distinguishes between so called 'advice' cases and 'information' cases. Whilst criticising the descriptive adequacy of those labels, Lord Sumption clarified that: 'Advice' cases are those where the professional provided advice to their client whether or not to enter into the transaction and, in so doing, was under a duty to consider all relevant matters and protect the client against the full range of risks associated with the transaction. In such cases, the professional was legally responsible for the decision to enter the transaction and, if negligent, the client would in principle be entitled to recover all losses flowing from the transaction. 'Information' cases are those where the professional provided only a limited part of the range of information (which could include advice in the way that word is commonly understood) taken into account by the client in forming their own decision whether or not to enter into the transaction. In such cases, the professional is not legally responsible for the decision to enter the transaction and will only be liable for the financial consequences of the specific information provided by him/her being wrong. Furthermore, that is the case even if the material provided by the professional was known to be critical to the client's decision to enter the transaction. The fact that the client would not have entered the transaction had the professional provided correct information is not sufficient to establish liability.
Hi ALS The precedent is not great and that for these types of litigation ASTO will have to prove that it relied exclusively on the audit and more and this is tricky as making an investment decision involves a number of factors. A recent example is BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland. Hughes Holland claimed that BPE had acted negligently in preparing the loan agreement - as ASTO say is the case with GT audit - and indeed the court found that BPE had acted negligently. However, BPE were not responsible for the loss as it did not opine on the value of the business, which the courts view as a commercial risk. In other words, HH could have lost money anyways as lending moneys is inherently a risky business. We don't know the full facts here but all I can assume is that for ASTO to be pursuing the claim, there must be reasons beyond a negligent audit - which we know to be the case - and that GT must have opined on the value of acquisitions. As we know, investing in shares is inherently a risky venture, much riskier than lending against the value of a property. And that the burden of proof will be high. All this apart, this still looks like an interesting situation because there is a strong chance that ASTO will use the cash to make an acquisition, making the company considerably more valuable.. w1
ALS: May have been mentioned before but ADVFN finacials wrong - From DM website Market capitalisation £33.58m Shares in issue 12.21m Thought figures were too goo to be true !!!!!!!!
ALS, I agree w1
Results should be soon. I don't know why it takes a small company 6 months to sort out their accounts. I'm hoping they can hold on to that Middle Eastern contract for a couple more years and they win their claim against GT. If those two things go my way I expect to double my money and if they both go against me I expect to lose 20%. I think it's quite an attractive risk/reward personally.
"A hearing of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Financial Reporting Council ("FRC") will commence on Monday 15 January 2018 at 10.00am to consider a Formal Complaint against (1) John Shannon, former Chief Executive Officer of AssetCo plc, and a member of Chartered Accountants Ireland (“CAI”); (2) Raymond Flynn, former Chief Financial Officer of AssetCo plc and a member of CAI and (3) Matthew Boyle, former Financial Controller of AssetCo plc and a member of CAI". Https://,-raymond-f Well that only took seven years then. It really is a disgrace how slow the FRC is to take action against accused accountants.
effortless cool
Latest news - I think - was on watch list many years ago before "problems" I think referes to the same company ?? Accountants Grant Thornton fined £2.3m over audit Accountancy firm Grant Thornton (GT), has been fined £2.3m and severely reprimanded by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) over failings in its audit of a company called AssetCo.
3.50 you mean
Since last September shares in AssetCo have gone from 1.61p to 250p a share
The new board of AssetCo, the firm that used to maintain London's fire engines, today said it was suing its past management for more than £50 million over a "very significant decline in [shareholder] value"...
Interesting to see Henderson buying 400000 more shares, suggests they at any rate have confidence.
The good old Daily Telegraph reported today that "Since last September shares in AssetCo have gone from 1.61p to 250p a share". No mention of a 1 for 1000 consolidation. Great reporting!
only another 900%+ rise to go to break even LOL
Should dive now lol - 2 for a pound - roll up, roll up, get your fire engines here my dearies :)
Steady rise - the only thing with this on the AIM market that can stunt the steady incline is some good news !!
What a real wee raver this stock is - excitement all the way :)
-The contract, which is for an initial five years (with a five year extension), involves a total turnkey solution for the provision of personnel, training, operational equipment and facilities management, and follows the award to AssetCo in March 2010 of the first contract of its kind in the UAE. -The revenue impact for the AssetCo group is expected to be at least GBP40 million over the initial five years From the results just published (to September 2011) UAE contributed over £1.2M of profit. Not sure when the contract mentioned in the 21/02/2011 announcement will come into effect, but assume that it is earning enhancing, then net off the cash from the current value, and I am turning bullish here.
the drewster
Feb 21st 2011: LONDON (Dow Jones)--AssetCo PLC (ASTO.LN), said Monday that following the joint venture with Emirates Advanced Investments, AssetCo Fire and Rescue has been awarded a GBP120 million contract to provide a fully outsourced firefighting service by the GHQ UAE Armed Forces.
the drewster
Lincoln is gone (regardless of the legalities - if the client is in that frame of mind, it is "all over". Not sure I have seen the financial models for the UAE contracts, but tempting, I must admit.
the drewster
TD, They were consistently doing that level of EBITDA a couple of years ago. The question is to what degree it was real or fictitious. But if even 50% of it is real then I agree they COULD be a real bargain. One needs to remember they had huge net-debt when they were trading at 60p whereas now they have large net-cash. If they can get the business back on track and generate a fraction of previous EBITDA then it will look very very cheap at the current EV. However, at the moment there is too much uncertainty for me to take a stake. Certainly one to keep an eye on over the next year or two IMO. But for the brave buying in now it could well pay off in spades. IMO, DYOR Des
Chat Pages: 90  89  88  87  86  85  84  83  82  81  80  79  Older
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:30 V: D:20180721 11:21:45