We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| London Asia | LDC | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 2.85 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.85 | 2.85 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 05/12/2016 14:10 by nextlink I doubt it.I suspect this shower have taken more money from investors. I do not believe this will ever relist. |
Posted at 15/6/2015 05:50 by loverat Those who remember 'Painting' and his posts on here will now be aware that it was Littlewood. These posts always makes me laugh. He used to always get annoyed when shareholders criticised the management at the time. Just think - not long before the first two posts he was conned out of 5 Million USD.painting - 26 May'07 - 14:45 - 7804 of 8914 If you read the PBM announcement correctly, I think you'll find LDC had 150k shares, worth at listing STG30k, which is no doubt the fee LDC received for listing it, rather than an investment, as the announcement says the shares "were issued in conjunction with the Ofex Admission." Re directorships - I think you'll find that LDC and LCP have a stated investment policy of always talking board seats on their investments, which is standard practice in PE investment. You are obviously an expert on listing businesses in Singapore having spent 5 minutes looking at the marketing literature on their web page - your knowledge is clearly vastly grater than the 15 years I have spent in Asia listing busineses on Asian markets, and next time I have a float, will certainly be seeking your advice. Do you seriously believe the appication fee is the largest cost - do you have an idea (stupid question, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about)how much lawyers, corporate finance advisors, sponsors, underwriters and accountants charge? painting - 26 Jul'07 - 11:32 - 8045 of 8914 SL's time better spent on working at the business level than wasting time dealing with shareholders - look at China New Energy, announced this morning - 5x return on investment in less than a year, with USD20m raised. And note on the press release the contact is SL. Far from having been sacked and disappearing from sight, he is out making money for the fund and London Asia. winterfun - 30 May'08 - 02:29 - 8704 of 8914 the company is run by someone in Cornwall (their new global HQ!) who seems to have no experience in China, private equity, fund managment, banking, or anything else relevant to what LDC is supposed to be doing. They've announced the closure of their offices in China, so presumably the staff that had any idea of how to run the business have disappeared, so who is going to manage their assets and generate any income? No surprise people heading for the exit. What institutional investor is going to back this? |
Posted at 06/5/2015 19:42 by topvest Probably because they are dealing with an investor group with (at best - I'm being generous) dubious morale attitudes given with what has happened in the past. It wouldn't surprise me if they are just being difficult on purpose. Then you have a UK Board that many of us don't really trust again for good reason. Two parties like that trying to negotiate something that will give others some return is most likely to get nowhere for many years. One day we might get something, but this could go on for years. Hopefully common sense will prevail at some point, but don't bank on it! I've written down my investment to a fifth of net asset value from a quarter before today's announcement. |
Posted at 22/10/2013 04:24 by loverat I would not beat yourself up about it. As well as the findings of the investigation which no one could know about, the posts on this very bulletin board point to a very clever and sophisticatd pump and dump going back years. The posts here are also part of a parallel investigation into various wrongdoings.Some time ago I was reading back through the posts here. I think it is fair to say that despite the high risk of this as an AIM company operating where it did, there were lots of people talking up the prospects and the risk/reward did not look unattractive. This company had many assets and it is fair to say that no one could know what was happening to them. Plus several of the ex directors of the company and friends were operating under various user IDs on here talking up the shares for years. The poster 'Painting' who had a vast knowledge of the inner workings of the company must have been responsible for some people investing. Those posters who expressed reservations about LDC were largely drowned out for their views by the directors posting here and that was partly what prompted my complaint to the FSA some time back. I think the real alarm bells started to ring when Simon Littlewood left and then there was relatively long silence, presumably while the new management team tried to get grips on the business and started to realise the full extent of the problems unfold. One example - if one looks carefully at the posts during the dying dies before suspension you can see that several were between the director(s) who had left (Winterfun being one example) and the ones picking up the pieces of the mess left behind (tenniselbow who seemed to be trying to find out how the company worked and what assets it had by asking other posters!!). It was well known amongst directors and several others that the poster known as 'painting' who had a very good knowledge of LDC was a director and you can detect in some of the posts his contempt for shareholders and other directors. Not so obvious for investors posting here at the time though. painting - 26 Jul'07 - 11:32 - 8045 of 8914 SL's time better spent on working at the business level than wasting time dealing with shareholders winterfun - 30 May'08 - 02:29 - 8704 of 8914 the company is run by someone in Cornwall (their new global HQ!) who seems to have no experience in China, private equity, fund managment, banking, or anything else relevant to what LDC is supposed to be doing. They've announced the closure of their offices in China, so presumably the staff that had any idea of how to run the business have disappeared, so who is going to manage their assets and generate any income? No surprise people heading for the exit. What institutional investor is going to back this? tenniselbow - 30 May'08 - 09:12 - 8705 of 8914 Does Painting return ( Winterfun ) tenniselbow - 26 Aug'08 - 13:04 - 8757 of 8914 Eastsea does LDC still hold ? tenniselbow - 20 Oct'08 - 18:53 - 8784 of 8914 I think the FSA have enough on their plates! but it's interesting that Allnut was removed from the board of China bio foods when it is alleged he refused to sign off their accounts and had reservations about their operations. I don't think he's 'in bed' with Littlewood and I think the next 3 months will prove this as there appears to be action going on. Lets see what the calibre of the new directors apparently being brought in by allnutt, are like. |
Posted at 14/10/2013 20:31 by marksp2011 looks like Fidelity are receiving the ragged end of a pineapple sans vaseline - a chinese gaming/animation company and related party transactions - who would have thought it?I take it the our gallant Government is making efforts to woo the Chinese because the Bonanno ad Gambino families have something better to do with their money |
Posted at 25/9/2013 08:04 by unionhall Letter to ShareholdersPosted: 24 September 2013 Dear Shareholder As promised at the Annual General Meeting I am now providing a further report to shareholders regarding the current position relating to London Asia Capital plc and its subsidiary companies. As a result of the resignations of Toby Parker and Francesco Gardin, I have now taken executive responsibility for trying to resolve a number of matters that have caused considerable concern to me over the last couple of months, particularly matters over which Toby Parker had primary control. I have put a small team together to deal with these matters and help me as follows: David Fordham and Ben Hart in dealing with and reviewing all matters relating to shareholders, bringing the share register up-to-date, other legal corporate matters and the administration of the company secretariat. Paul Bobroff in relation to realisation of assets & Section 110 proposals. Fenton Higgins in relation to finance matters. In relation to shareholder matters, we will be looking to try and find a solution for shareholders to realise value and more on this will follow in due course. There have been a number of matters of concern to deal with, namely as follows: 1. Myeg Services Berhad LAC would like to realise its MyEg shares, the market value of which is around £2m. The current custodians in Malaysia have so far refused to transfer the shares to our appointed custodians and major legal proceedings are likely to follow in relation to this very shortly. This is of considerable concern as I have now been brought up-to-date with the facts in this matter and there is frankly no good reason for the shares not to be under our control. 2. Bank Mayapada For some time LAC has been seeking to dispose of its shareholding in Bank Mayapada. Until very recently there has been no liquid market in the shares but we have now implemented a different strategy and are beginning to realise our shareholding. We are continuing to actively manage this position and I hope that this new approach will result in a more successful outcome. 3. Former Directors conduct As a result of the former directors failed action in improperly seeking to remove Sir Jeremy Hanley and myself in the summer, legal costs and expenses approaching £200,000 have been incurred. We are reviewing a considerable element of these costs and intend to dispute some of these vigorously. 4. Hong Kong subsidiaries We have been faced with tax bills in our Hong Kong subsidiary companies totalling HKD 760,000 and whilst we have been advised that there is no alternative other than to pay this sum, there are grounds for appeal which may ultimately reduce this considerably. We are attempting to discover how these tax liabilities arose and who was responsible for incurring them. 5. Croatia Investment In looking at the $5m apparently invested in a Croatian corporation, which has not been returned, I have recently had a meeting with a substantial investor in that Company who has been concerned at press comment made by Toby Parker during the summer. I am carrying out more research into this matter to see whether any recovery is possible. Your Board has now agreed that it will pursue the Section 110 proposals and the lawyers have been instructed to start this process and prepare documentation for shareholders to consider in due course. This will hopefully enable the Company to find a methodology which will give value back to shareholders and resolve the differences that exist between the two sets of shareholders in Europe and the Far East. More on this will follow shortly. There is much work being undertaken and hopefully the next 3-6 months will see some progress, which I hope will be beneficial to all shareholders. I shall keep you informed of developments. David Buchler Chairman London Asia Capital plc |
Posted at 03/12/2012 15:26 by curt3 Many thanks Loverat for comprehensive response. I have always been an optimistic investor , but this one has provided a salutary lesson in matters of corporate governance and auditors worthiness !! |
Posted at 02/11/2012 22:48 by loverat I really hope you do get your money back but nothing is gained by sitting meekly back and saying nothing about the con artists that ran this company and others in the same stable. They are still out there deceiving and fleecing other investors. Reading the last annual report (and previous ones) I'd be surprised if a recovery will occur any time soon. It is simply staggering the events which occurred previously, involving many parties in several jurisdictions which looks like a nightmare to sort through. I see various litigation has been put on hold pending discussions and if I read the last report correctly there was a claim against LAC too. I can just see a situation where these discussions drag on and on without significant progress and the anticipated recoveries never made. |
Posted at 16/5/2012 14:15 by irenekent I would like to surmise that after the well publicised failure of the great Anthony Bolton to make headway in China, due to fraud and other dishonesty, that we might hope for things to change in that region. Perhaps it may dawn on the Chinese that if they are ever to make real headway in world finance they must be seen to be honorable.Maybe a new dawn approaches where private investors such as us will not expect to be shafted every time we invest our hard earned cash in China. |
Posted at 21/5/2009 20:11 by loverat I think that the charity George Allnutt and Nigel Smith set up to protect defrauded investors would also have acted in raising general awareness to investors on sites like this. It's a shame it never took off. Author: Anomalousl Number: 105125 of 105135 Date: 8/2/08 22:59 >David Just such a charity has been formed and already applied to the Charities Commission for registered status. The Investors' Support Fund was started as a company Limited byGuarantee, to become the only charity fighting financial crime on the London Markets. There is another charity that was formed some timeago to help fight crimne in general. This is known as Crimestoppers.So we know that the idea has already been approved. The Investors' Support Fund was formed by 4 investors after the Langbar fraud, with the purpose of assisting the victims of financialcrime to organise themselves and reclaim any stolen funds. As a registered charity, the Fund would be able to seek charitabledonations from Institutional investors. The benefit for them is thatnot only is the donation tax deductable, but in the majority of Cityscandals, it is not just the private investor that suffers losses. Institutional investors are very reluctant to admit bad investments -let alone commence legal recovery for them. By funding the legalclaims of Action Groups, the Institutionals can benefit from anyjudgements achieved by rubber stamped verdicts. Furthermore, the charity can alert and educate investors to avoidfinancial crime and helping the authorities, both regulators andpolice, by providing any evidence of unusual trading or fraudulentactivity. In the Langbar fraud, a considerable number of well known InstitionalInvestors lost millions. It makes perfect sense for the Institutionals to fight financial crime through 'proxy' recoveries. We've discussed this at length with the Charities Commission. Eventhough the Institutionals may derive benefit from any legal action,they would not necessarily be funding a legal action after theybecome a victim. In a sense, it is like buying an insurance policy byensuring that there is someone out there willing to assist thevictims of crime. Although still not a registered charity, the ISF already has a beta-website and contacts with several law firms - with cases alreadyunderway to prove that the charity model works. We have also alreadybeen in the press, the Daily Telegraph and Shares Magazine. In funding any legal action, the charity would have to verify that the investors qualify for charitable assistance, as per the Charity rules. Any successful recovery would not seek a percentage of theaward, but instead sign a legal funding agreement with the ActionGroup. This would allow them to seek back the legal costs and uplifton the funding as well. The victims get back 100% of their losses andinterest. The charity gets back the donation made to legalfunding/legal insurance together with any uplift. The Charity can then seek investors to act as part-time representatives on various financial BBs like Fool and other sites -to assist the victims to set up their own Shareholder Action Groups. The key to success is that the shareholders have to perform their own recovery - but they do so with the help of investors who havesuccessfully completed recoveries of their own before and know theropes. If this charity works - and the company has been operating for nearly 2 years now, then I can see similar charities being set up in othermarkets by locals for their own native investors. You could say that great minds think alike David. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
