Auction Technology Share Discussion Threads

[diku] 26/6/2012 22:42

Do those main insiders have other Directorships?....

[alexi5] 26/6/2012 18:09

SS has inspired me to not be such a banana and research more before buying, rather than after...ahem

[silkstag] 26/6/2012 18:09

Gents, thanks to all. "If ever published I expect the accounts to show: a) 2011 loss ballpark £10m (best case £8m loss); b) Consolidated Group net liabilities ballpark -£3m. Hence about -6p per share liquidation deficit, made worse by liquidator and other fees. Maybe they will never be issued but instead Porkies Pearson will sign a Statement of Affairs and hand it to an Administrator, who will sell the Tech division assets to a company backed by RCapital". I am waiting to compare the numbers to Winks/Pearson 20-1-2012 and 10-5-2012 RNSs!

[bozzy_s] 26/6/2012 16:38

Justified praise for SS from Lucian Miers. Hope you made a decent profit on your excellent research SS.

[windass] 26/6/2012 15:55

As predicted by Lucian Miers. He's getting a good track record together now http://sharecrazy.com/beta/daily/7207/adventis-dead-as-predicted

[silkstag] 26/6/2012 15:29

Arf, if Winks/Pearson had managed to sell tech for £1.5m to pay off the bank then the 10-5-2012 RNS was still a lie. In truth on their scenario they would appoint a liquidator due to say £4m unsecured liabilities (which they concealed), so would not ask for an 'investing policy'. They also omitted to mention the existence of these other net liabilities, which is deceit and sharp-editing (hence also a lie). Winks/Pearson expressly lied. Also your post implies it was my quote which it was not. It was Winks/Pearson 10-5-2012 RNS. ps If Winks/Pearson had sold tech pre administration then it would have been deemed an investment company under AiM Rule 15 having sold (substantially) all its trading business activity. But under AiM Rules Schedule 4 (f) and (j) the circular to shareholders would have to had stipulated the "effect on the AiM company". Since it would be instant lioqudation, it was a lie for Winks/Pearson to suggest on 10-5-2012 "would seek shareholder approval for an appropriate investing policy". That created a false market in ATG shares as some punters, not realising Winks/Pearson were deceit peddlers, might have inferred the Directors were talking about a solvent future for ATG - which would not take place even on the scenario the directors specified (and they couldnt even deliver that).

[arf dysg] 26/6/2012 14:02

SilkStag (461) "sale of the Technology division will realise sufficient funds to more than satisfy the LBG bank debt...If this were to be the case, the Company would become an investing company as defined in the AIM Rules " This could have been more weasly wyrds. What if the rules say things like "no ongoing business, no assets... defines an investing company" ? That particular rule might not mention the existence (or otherwise) of liabilities, since other rules would handle the case of a bankrupt company. In other words, having sold the tech. division, ATG could well theoretically be an investing company (no tangible assets, no ongoing revenue). Winks & Person would of course have accidentally forgotten to say that that would be completely irrelevant because of other issuess, like for example just happening to be bankrupt.

[345654] 26/6/2012 14:00

SilkStag I see, so Tsb take a hit but the new "bailiffs" want the full amount still, you would think they would be happy with half and give the company a chance but i guess not ?

[silkstag] 26/6/2012 12:37

Loverat, thanks. Stinky Winks and Porkies Pearson may try one or two more pre-Administration fibs but their problem is the auditors can see the dire facts on the tech sale offers so as posted above "I expect the auditors to refuse to let them falsely over-value the goodwill again (which was apparently their plan)". That may explain why they repeatedly failed to issue the accounts: 20-1-2012: "The Board...results...year ended 31 December 2011 which is expected to be released in April 2012". 10-5-2012: "The Company expects to release its preliminary results announcement for the year ended 31 December 2011 in early June 2012". 13-6-2012: "The Company is working with its auditors...year ended 31 December 2011...expects to release its final year results shortly". 26-6-2012: "the Company will not be in a position to publish its audited accounts for the year ended 31 December 2011 ("Annual Accounts") by 30th June 2012 as required under AIM Rule 19. The suspension, which commenced at 10.00 a.m. today, will remain in place until the Group's Annual Accounts have been announced and posted to shareholders. A further announcement will be made in due course". If ever published I expect the accounts to show: a) 2011 loss ballpark £10m (best case £8m loss); b) Consolidated Group net liabilities ballpark -£3m. Hence about -6p per share liquidation deficit, made worse by liquidator and other fees. Maybe they will never be issued but instead Porkies Pearson will sign a Statement of Affairs and hand it to an Administrator, who will sell the Tech division assets to a company backed by RCapital. ps 345654, your post 462 asked "What if the debt was sold on for a fraction of the total amount...on maybe 10-20%, then would that give ATG hope". No. Adventis still owes RCapital the full face value of the £1.5m debt, which they will use to grab debtors, thereby increasing the loss faced by the unsecured creditors.

[loverat] 26/6/2012 10:14

Well, as expected. I think on this one it is fair to say folks had fair warning. This company and directors may be being featuring on a planned website coming soon hopefully. SilkStag - I might ask you for some help in compiling a case study.

[345654] 26/6/2012 09:07

lol andrbea 26 Jun'12 - 09:05 - 115337 of 115338 kenv 66% think this used to be mss mss thread said once: saud2237 6 Jun'12 - 17:14 - 2556 of 2565 Just spoke to someone from the City and apparently there may be some link up between leeds resources and kennedy venture. Peter Redmond is

[345654] 26/6/2012 08:57

SilkStag What if the debt was sold on for a fraction of the total amount, usually banks sell basket case debt on maybe 10-20%, then would that give ATG hope, just trying to work out why people are buying the stock although it is probably penny share gamblers than serious value investors ?

[silkstag] 24/6/2012 16:57

Arf, you forget that on 10-5-2012 Stinky Winks and Porkies Pearson suggested: "sale of the Technology division will realise sufficient funds to more than satisfy the LBG bank debt...If this were to be the case, the Company would become an investing company as defined in the AIM Rules for Companies and would seek shareholder approval for an appropriate investing policy". The truth at 10-5-2012 was that covering the bank would still have left ATG facing instant insolvent liquidation, because of the other net liabilities. Their suggestion otherwise was expressly a lie, not just deceit by omission, which is one of their two favourite flavours of deceit. The other being false over-valuation of goodwill to cover-up losses and the inevitable net liabiltiies at liquidation. I expect the 2011 accounts to prove me right on all of this.

[silkstag] 24/6/2012 16:29

2011 Accounts will be issued by 30 June else ATG shares suspended under AiM Rule 19. Noone should care what spin or deceit Winks/Pearson deploy. All previous misleading, deceitful or bullish statements have proven to be false. I expect the accounts to show: a) 2011 loss ballpark £10m (best case £8m loss). Stinky Winks and Porkies Pearson 20-1-2012 Trading Update suggested £5.6m loss. I expect the auditors to refuse to let them falsely over-value the goodwill again (which was apparently their plan). b) Consoldiated Group net liabilities ballpark -£3m. Hence about -6p per share liquidation deficit, made worse by liquidator and other fees.

[bozzy_s] 24/6/2012 02:34

Good research alexi re. Little Chef. It's that sort of effort that puts you (and Silkstag) in a better position than most when trading/investing. Everything is pointing to ordinary shareholders getting zero. Fact is, previously at least, there were holders on this BB who just refused to see the truth. That's natural. But very, very costly. Whether SS is right or wrong, shareholders won't like him. Just like Simon Cawkwell the shorter. Not universally liked, and not given the credit he deserves, because he spots bad companies and acts on that. Re these, if no results next week the shares will be automatically suspended (but not delisted yet). My guess would be results will be released and perhaps some re-iteration that 'there is little or no value for existing ordinary shareholders' - which is what most companies in this position would say. What do you reckon SS? Results + comment? Results without that warning? Or no results at all?

[alexi5] 23/6/2012 11:33

I have been doing some research and have read about Little Chef which Rcapital bought out of administration and then five years later put the company into pre-pack administration. When we get the RNS to say what RCapital's intentions are, if it does not mention a forthcoming administration, I would not be surprised if that is what eventually happens, as Silk says, whether sooner like Plowman Craven or later, like Little Chef. ATG's accounts have to be released next week or else they will be de-listed - is that right?

[arf dysg] 22/6/2012 18:10

SS, I thought the 10th of May announcement said that the sale of the technology division would raise enough to cover the bank debt. The deceit in that case was accidentally forgetting to mention unsecured creditors. Now they are saying that the sale won't cover the total debt. Well, that was expected because of the confidence with which they said that the sale would cover the £1.5m bank debt (while forgetting to mention the other liabilities). I read it as different words but not changing the position at all. What changes things is the announcement on the 19th of June. Since Lloyds have sold the debt to a third party, one must ask why. I assume that Lloyds think that that is the best and/or quickest way in which they can get (some of) their money back. It's a bit of a hint that they might not get the full £1.5m. The 13th of June announcement, on the other hand, simply says that a sale is going ahead without disagreeing with what was said before.

[bozzy_s] 22/6/2012 17:23

It's quotes like the above which make me 100% inclined to believe Silkstag. Making such strong comments he must be absolutely certain his facts are correct. Speaking of which, I notice Saud 'these are gonna be taken over, my mate in the city says so' did bail out - probably with the piddly little trade I mentioned above. He's also risking a lot of trouble to try and make a hundred or two quid, with lies and deceit. Needs his head examining! Like shoplifting from a charity shop!! Good to see a liar and an idiot lose nearly 50% in a day.

[silkstag] 22/6/2012 16:38

Arf, dear Arf, sweet innocent Arf. You are correct that Winks/Pearson used ambiguous misleading words on 13 June. But they have a history of deceit so it is logical to assume it was deliberate, to try to cover up their previous false expectations. Read the 10-5-2012 RNS carefully and then compare it to 13-6-2012. I expect a 2011 loss of ballpark £10m (best case maybe £8m loss). On 20-1-2012 Stinky Winks and Porkies Pearson said they expected £5.6m loss. They have had all the figures in front of them throughout. I have been trying to unpick their deceit and apparent crooked over-valuations of goodwill. Lets see who is closest (assuming the auditors dont let them fiddle the valuations again).

[arf dysg] 22/6/2012 16:06

SilkStag (451) "Forget the £1.5m Winks/Pearson said would easily be exceeded, then they admitted it would not." No - careful with the wording!!! Quote from RNS item: 13th June: "net proceeds will almost certainly not be sufficient to repay in full the Company's bank debt and other liabilities" It doesn't say "can't repay bank debt". It says "can't repay bank debt AND OTHER LIABILITIES". So the wording allows the possibility that the bank debt will be paid off, but not the other liabilities. Of course, all this theorising would be avoided if they had bothered to tell shareholders how much money would be raised by the sale. SilkStag (453) "epitaph on Adventis' tombstone." ...assuming there's enough money available to pay for the tombstone.

[silkstag] 21/6/2012 12:06

No. Even that question is a slur. I check the facts, check calculations and tell the truth. Not exactly Adventis house style! Adventis was spun out of Savills, who still are the largest shareholder and have a Director on the Adventis Board, Allan Collins. They have not invested a penny into Adventis since 2004. 'You can aim to spin the advertising company outside the estate agent into the rule of dirty directors. But you can't direct the dirty advertising estate agent spin inside AiM Rules for Companies'. I'm struggling for an epitaph on Adventis' tombstone. Any better suggestions?

[alexi5] 21/6/2012 11:05

What got you so interested in Adventis in the first place, Silk? Did you used to work for them or something?