London Asia Capital Share Discussion Threads

[egoi] 29/10/2009 17:27

Thanks Doug and others.

I actually don't think anyone is trying to stir things, just discuss on the basis of what is 'out there' - and what remains to be addressed - how the very best solution for shareholders can be reached, and whether shareholders feel that either party's suggestions add up to that.

Incidentally, does anyone know if Mr Littlewood has signalled that he has accepted the findings in the letter or not?

Anyway it is good the shareholders will get a chance to vote, hopefully ask pertinent (and impertinent?) questions of various parties and express their views at the meeting.

And maybe I think for now things are best left there until that time?

All, as ever of course, imho!

[hindsight] 29/10/2009 17:18

Crockanure8

Re CFS in the document release, now we know why Littlewood & co said their accounts were private so they couldn't report them

6.10 China Financial Services
China Financial Services ("CFS") was one of LAC's early investments, and paid substantial dividends. CFS provided real-time information on securities and analysis software to support investors to buy in the stock market. We understand that CFS was prepared for a public listing in 2006. As at 30 June 2007 the fair value of this investment of £4.76 million was included in LAC's interim results.
Your Directors have now discovered that in the summer of 2006, the China Stock Exchange announced that it would no longer provide free market data and as a result the business of CFS rapidly collapsed.
14
In calendar year 2006, CFS's revenue was £2.78m and pre-tax profits £1.97m. Based on the information available, the revenue in 2007 was £227,873 and the losses amounted to £1.34m. In the first half of 2008, CFS had no revenue and lost £841,103. It is believed the business has since ceased operating.

[crockanure8] 29/10/2009 16:45

If Nagel is presuming that he now has almost a 10.5 p nav in situ, why is he recomending a 5p offer for the company. The brokerage licence in China is worth that alone.
Am I getting this right and should we be getting a multiple of the nav.

[dougcsv] 29/10/2009 16:27

Whilst I quite understand the need for evidence and proof ; the fact is that all we can do is react to what we get told. I've had conversations and am happy with the answers. I am cautious about posting the details for the following reasons:

1) I did not ask if I could relay the info.


2) I may phrase things in a different way which may cause trouble

3) other thread users would , quite rightly, be possibly sceptical about what I say.....I'm just another faceless poster after all.

That said, I understand there is a strategy involving the other investments which makes sense to me. I also understand GA and JW's role and am happy with the explanation.

Re the comments in the GM Notice doc - My own view is that they would not have included them unless they were pretty clear they could defend those statements.


I don't know what price QVT's holding was from - but it seems to me this is a 'grab it and carve it up for whatever we can get' job. It certainly won't be in all of our best interests. Esp if our china player won't play ball with the poss new management team. And having someone inside China whos interests are aligned with ours and who wields influence and has 'contacts' would be highly advantageous in realising/recovering some of these 'investments'

That's my take on it anyway 'reading between the lines'

Sorry for the number of '....'

E&OE and DYOR etc etc

[crockanure8] 29/10/2009 15:14

I would also like to know where our investment in CFS stands at the present time.
This company was due to float on the Nasdaq with a price tag of $90m dollars. We increased our stake to something close to 50% of this company and nothing has been heard of since.

Any thoughts.

[egoi] 29/10/2009 14:00

Doug you probably think I am being pedantic in still needing convincing either way, and i understand that if you do, maybe I am!

Nevertheless I think it might be worth trying this sort of line of questioning, purely for example.

the Dalian quote (in Feb) was:

'....as the Company does not currently have the
resources to be able to meet all the costs involved in maintaining the listing.........'

I gather that once you are quoted on Plus, it is £10,000 a year to maintain it (happy to be corrected if that figure is inaccurate, as it is only hearsay and could easily therefore be wrong).
Of course there are other considerations such as auditors etc, but given that Mr Allnutt is a current non-exec, would he mind sharing with everyone when he was last paid by Dalian?

Conincidentally, I find that there appears to be ongoing activity on a website related to Dalian (though I don't have all the necessary language packs to decipher it all):



Also, moving on to other matters, I still am not personally sure all the most 'interesting', to me anyway, questions are all being asked.

Where/who did the info in the letter to shareholders about Mr Littlewood come from, for example,(and was anything offered in return)? And am I right to guess lawyers have approved this letter to shareholders?

I could hazard a totally wild guess or two as to possible answers to these questions, but I would quite probably be completely wrong as I can think of many possible answers myself, so in this case I won't!

[dougcsv] 29/10/2009 11:55

egoi, I shall see what I can find out.

Re the FSA - I'm not surprised.

[egoi] 29/10/2009 11:49

Doug good set of questions indeed imho.

Certainly I agree that the Brett Miller 'faction' (if I can call them that) might find before long that they need to answer questions about their time working with Mr Littlewood, but then the same question I think might be asked of Mr Allnutt.

Indeed what was the 1p thing all about?

I'd like to see more information on Kaidi. Ironic perhaps that Mr Littlewood appears to have been a prime mover in the original LDC tie-ups with Kaidi?



Equally I'd love to see more detail about some of the 'missing' companies (China Education, Dalian et al).

Mr Allnutt ought to be able to tell us for example ALL about Dalian as the letter to shareholders states that he is:

'.....currently chairman of Photo Distribution Limited, a UK logistics business, Managing Director of Penhale Estates Limited, a non-executive director of Commodity Growth Plc, non-executive director of Dalian Business Institute....'

The very same Dalian that, to reprise went from:

this company's interims to January 2008 (the most recently available numbers) showed revenues of 1.4 million and a profit of 553k. Net assets stood at over 13 million and cash and equivalents increased from 111k to 665k, while the then current liabilities amounted to a relatively tiny imho 114k.

TO:

Dalian Business Institute (Plus:DBIO) shares were suspended due to late results on the 2nd of February and the next day the company said it intended to delist.

Since then Plus has received an objection to the delisting and the company has aborted its plan, however they say:
'.......The Company's shares will
remain suspended from trading on PLUS, and we do not anticipate a lifting of
the suspension in the near future as the Company does not currently have the
resources to be able to meet all the costs involved in maintaining the listing.........'



...................And subsequently delisted.

That is why personally until I hear an explanation regarding this remarkable - imho - turn of events, I am personally as unimpressed about the bid from the current board as I am about the offer from the 'rival faction'.

Finally, I note this:



If the link doesn't take you to the exact page as sometimes I find the FSA ones don't it confirms that Simon Littlewood is currently FSA listed as 'active'.

[dougcsv] 29/10/2009 10:13

I have to agree; One has to consider the following in my opinion;

1) Who was allegedly going around trying to pick up shares on the cheap recently (at 1P ?)

2) What price did QVT get it's shares

3) How close are QVT to the proposed board members and the previous mob

4) How transparent are QVT and the new board members likely to be in their affairs

5) Did QVT get active in the appointment of the current board assuming they were on the scene - why the change of heart now?

6) If QVT were not on the scene where did they acquire their holding ?

7) Given the lack of Cooperation by CGO and it's background why would we want their directors on our board. Are they (The new board) suddenly going to ask themselves (the CGO board) difficult questions?

I reckon the sooner these Hedge funds get regulated the better (and AIM for that matter !!)

[curt3] 29/10/2009 09:53

There can be little doubt that the current board and K Nagel have done an exceptional job in resurrecting the value of this co. The information given shows clearly that the previous management were either totally incompent or patently devious, if not corrupt !! The infringements of corporate regulations defies belief. I will be voting for the current Board to continue the work of resurecting value. I simply cannot understand why anyone would support a motion that has any connection with Simon Littlewood.

[egoi] 29/10/2009 09:34

So let me see now, have I got this right?

Is it a choice between some guys offering 5p who have worked as fellow Directors with Mr Littlewood for much of 2009, or others who are saying the company is worth more, but who want to keep George Allnutt on board?

If I was a holder of either this or COMG (in answer to your q loverat, neither nowadays, just hoping to see justice for those that are; was a former brief small holder of LDC and of China Education Group along the way, wooed in part lol by some of the posts on here re the supposed nav, sucker!), I'd be tempted I think to view this Youtube video (I gather you are a fan of YT Loverat lol!!)

[loverat] 29/10/2009 07:27

The thing is I guess KN has been in a tricky position and he may have had to keep some rather unsavoury people with significant shareholdings onside.

[tokyojohn] 29/10/2009 07:22

You'd hope so.

[loverat] 29/10/2009 07:16

And Allnutt has quite a few. Around 5% I would say.


9 April 2009

Mr. Allnutt currently owns 428,920 ordinary shares in the Company. George
Allnutt is also a director and shareholder of Photo Distribution Limited and
Penhale Estates Limited, which hold 4,016,680 and 500,000 ordinary shares
respectively in the Company.

Naturally - as per the update he will be voting against.

[tokyojohn] 29/10/2009 07:08

Cheers LR. So that's about 15% sure to vote for the QVT motions.

[loverat] 29/10/2009 07:04

I think this was the last notification. Not sure about his wife (unless she is included as one of his 'associates' in this RNS)

RNS Number:5446Q
London Asia Capital PLC
20 March 2008


20 March 2008

LONDON ASIA CAPITAL plc
("London Asia" or "the Company")

Shareholder notification

London Asia has been informed that Simon Littlewood, director of several
subsidiaries of the Company, and his associates have acquired 688,173 ordinary
shares in the Company at up to 5.25p per share to increase their stake to
10,432,786 ordinary shares in the Company, which represents approximately 3.20%
of the issued voting share capital.

For further information please visit www.londonasiacapital.com or contact:

John West/Andrew Dunn Jonathan Wright Simon Littlewood
Tavistock Communications Seymour Pierce London Asia
Tel: [phone] Tel [phone] Tel [phone]

[tokyojohn] 29/10/2009 06:59

Do we know if SL/his wife etc still own shares in LDC?

Wonder what any institutional holders will do.

[loverat] 29/10/2009 06:45

Yeah - and interesting too that they want to keep Allnutt.

Considering his long standing links to Littlewood I would be very sceptical indeed.

[tokyojohn] 29/10/2009 06:32

LR

I'm particularly suspicious because of the way that SL seems to have given some token cooperation to the board's enquiries but then abruptly stopped, presumably when they started touching a nerve. That, plus the refusal of this hedge fund to even meet the directors, makes me think that SL's initial plan was to sit tight and hope the directors didn't dig too deep. Then, once it became clear he couldn't fob them off, he decided to get more proactive, enlisting his hedge fund mates to kick the board out and hastily wind up LDC before the full truth came out.

[loverat] 29/10/2009 06:20

TJ

That is an interesting theory and not one I would discount at all. Let this through and who knows who will be pulling the strings.

[tokyojohn] 29/10/2009 06:07

There are certainly questions, but at least we have reason to believe the current directors might be serving shareholders' interests. With the other side, there's no question whatsoever that they're serving only their own interests and those of SL.

Just for fun, I'd like to ask Mr. Miller et al what they propose to do vis-a-vis Mr. Littlewood. Try to hold him accountable for his malfeasance, perhaps in the civil courts? Yeah right! I wouldn't be surprised if the whole scheme was conceived by QVT to help a mate out of a sticky situation. SL probably didn't think the LDC directors would be so damn persistent in tracking his actions.

[loverat] 29/10/2009 05:50

TJ

I am inclined to agree.

There are some justified concerns about the current management team which seem to have been glossed over in the letter. I think there will be some shareholders still very wary of whoever is in charge and I hope these concerns are addressed at some point.

But the proposed requisition does look to me like another self serving attempt to gain control of the company and I reckon to vote for it will be voting for a journey into the unknown.