Paragon Diamond Share Discussion Threads

[lnholder] 22/3/2017 15:34

One last post before I take my holidays.

Mr Manduca has asked us loan note holders for 'permission' to effectively write off our loan notes and to trust his word that we shall receive an equivalent holding in a new company that will replace their notional value i.e. zilch. Remarkably most of the group have agreed. Paragon Diamonds will be struck off this week and Titanium will be dissolved I believe and Mr Manduca will start a 'clean slate'. Yes you did read that right. He's asked to be let off and that we don't question his integrity.

To quote our dearly departed 'itsallilegal' I say to the acolytes 'for those who are not too bright, i.e. all of you on here'

Mr Manduca has confirmed that he does read this BB. Anyone care to guess what his handle is?

[coley15] 22/3/2017 15:30

Failure to file accounts and reports

Failure to comply with the statutory filing requirements within the allowed period:

1. constitutes an offence by every person who immediately before the end of the period for filing those accounts and reports was a director of the company, and

2. makes the company liable to a civil penalty

Directors’ liability for failure to file accounts and reports

For a director charged with the offence for failure to comply with the statutory filing requirements within the allowed period:

1. it is defence to prove that they took all reasonable steps for securing that those requirements would be complied with before the filing period ends, but

2. it is not a defence to prove that the required documents were not, in fact, prepared

The penalty for this offence is:

1. on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £5,000, and

2. for continued contravention, a daily default fine of up to £500

[lnholder] 22/3/2017 14:51

Failure to file company accounts is an offence.
Failure to update the memorandum is an offence.

All shareholders have a legal right to demand view of the company accounts.

Delisting a company from the stock market does not relieve the company of its reporting obligations. PRG were trading during the financial year 2015-16.

Let's see the accounts Mr Manduca.
And be quick about it.

[lnholder] 22/3/2017 14:32

Failing to file company accounts is an offence and all officers can be prosecuted.

Funny take on loyalty and commitment there Mr Manduca.

[geheimnis2] 22/3/2017 14:15

No it's not an offence, clubbie

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 14:10

And thanks, I've added the point about failing to file 2015-16 accounts to the letter. That surely is an offence in itself?

[lnholder] 22/3/2017 13:30

Mr Manduca has stated his intention to 'kill off' shareholders by starting a new company while himself, 'Simon Retter, Martin Doyle and Stephen Grimmer who have been through hell in the last two years but remained completely committed and loyal to our future potential without any remuneration whatsoever...' Loyal? Killing off shareholders! Fleeing from the company and allowing it to rot while rewarding themselves with shareholders money.

And shareholders and Loan Note holders haven't been through any hell at all?

There are several problems with his claims, the obvious problem being that the directors have done nothing in that time. Nothing at all. They haven't even fulfilled their basic obligations as officers of the company. Annual returns and accounts have been ignored as far as we know. We haven't seen accounts since period 2014-15, nothing filed for 2015-16 when it was still trading and listed. PRG the company appears to have been abandoned by its officers and fees remain unpaid is probably a bit more accurate, is it not. I should imagine this is in breach of Guernsey laws. Indeed 'itsallilegal' you might say. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have not been accounted for have they? We should assume that the companies bank accounts were emptied without proper record and as we know without an EGM or notice to shareholders yet serious transformational decisions affecting PRG were being made. This is in breach of regulation is it not?

Soliciting for money is something the FCA will happily take a close look at, too. They investigate individuals so closing a company offers no protection to its officers. Offences do not expire.

The acolytes are a sorry impotent huddle. Some are quite rightly very concerned now. Poor Vince is buckling under a barrage of emails and I'm sure he wished he'd never offered to be the messenger boy.

Mr Manduca has been ranting in recent days. He appears very flustered and has lost composure. He doesn't have all LN holders on his side but most appear scared to speak up.

Cue itsallilegal.

[beeks of arabia] 22/3/2017 12:25

I think we have our answer.

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 12:07

you say something beeks?

[beeks of arabia] 22/3/2017 11:26

*your grievance*?

SO you are asking for other peoples help, yet what will happen if you get restitution personally and no-one else does?

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 11:25

"You know like the one where it seems the note guys were told they would all lose if you didn't cough up some cash."

oh no, that was constructive extortion...

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 11:23

not blackmail, much closer to greenmail.

blackmail is defined as: "the action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them."

I'm not 'revealing' anything - all the information is already in the public domain in RNSs and interviews on YouTube.

what I've done in my letter is tie that information together - along with adding analysis and commentary and extracts from relevant legislation and regulations - and (hopefully) bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities. It's the analysis which will hopefully trigger action - the facts are already out there for anyone who can be bothered to look.

Parties settle before court cases all the time. I'm simply offering Manduca the opportunity to avoid the potential unpleasantness of an SFO investigation and possible prosecution if he settles my grievance, that's all.

[superg1] 22/3/2017 11:18

"2/ Buy my shares from me and remove my locus standi"

Actually isn't bad idea BUT legally it's back to that old blackmail issue again, so a no go area.

You know like the one where it seems the note guys were told they would all lose if you didn't cough up some cash.

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 11:18

As luck would have it (mine, not Manduca's), one of the people I'm in touch with has a chum who worked at the SFO for many years. He has kindly agreed to look the letter over, and advise on what language and phrases make it more likely to come to their attention and initiate action. Knowing which key phrases to use and buttons to press is always a massive advantage. Hopefully he will also be able to advise on the best person to send it to. I know of at least one other shareholder who is also preparing a complaint, completely independent of mine. Two credible complaints, landing on the same person's desk in close proximity, might make it more likely to be looked at.

Individual shareholder loss levels might be relatively low (though £70,075.85, as in my case, is hardly chickenfeed), but collectively we are talking tens of millions.

Even if the SFO decide not to pursue, presumably it will go on file somewhere or be recorded in some way - and maybe they would reconsider when, in a year or two, the LNH sheeple realise they too have been conned and decide to do something about it...

[superg1] 22/3/2017 11:05

It can't go in the bin. If you allege a crime it has to be recorded, even if it amounts to no crime.

I'm not sure the SFO would take it, it would depend what their filter criteria is on loss levels etc and definition of serious but in theory it would cascade down.

That said Quindell is on their list and still under investigation.

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 10:55

Beeks of Arabia22 Mar '17 - 10:45 - 7108 of 7109 0 0 (Filtered)

iLeeman22 Mar '17 - 10:51 - 7109 of 7109 0 0 (Filtered)

ah, the Marching Morons...

[beeks of arabia] 22/3/2017 10:45

Oooh - we have progress.

"2/ Buy my shares from me and remove my locus standi"


Stage 3 - Bargaining.

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 10:42

and you sir are filtered again.

can't tell the difference between an email and a letter. dear oh dear...

wasn't me who used the word 'flustered' - think that was LNHolder? You might want to learn to tell posters apart, too...

[ileeman] 22/3/2017 10:29

Same difference, no one is going to give you the time of day will just go straight in the bin.

You have it in your head you have Manduca flustered....

You sir are delusional.

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 10:27

"you sending an email"

can you not read, or are you just really *really* stupid? It's not an email, moron, it'a hard copy letter, 16 pages plus Appendices, closely-argued and with ample quotes from legislation, stock market regulations, RNSs and interviews to support my thesis.

Manduca doesn't care? You sure about that? You can speak for him, can you?

[club sandwich] 22/3/2017 09:32

super - well I would expect the LNH to fight their corner, as I am fighting mine - but to do it legally. My comments about Manduca on here have clearly not been actionable, otherwise he would have taken action (any time he wants to 'do an Oscar' and sue for libel I'll be more than happy to oblige).

That aside, all my letters have been perfectly legal, and I have posted them on my blog. I *won't* be posting the SFO letter - I see absolutely no reason to forewarn Manduca about what I hope will be coming his way.

However, turning up on someone's doorstep issuing threats is clearly *not* legal, and shows the desperation of the LNH. If they genuinely thought my claims were without merit why would they bother? But I think most of them know, deep down, that I'm right - they bought Loan Notes not because they thought they were a good idea, or in many cases probably even because they trusted Manduca, but because, as Whiskey Jim so clearly described, they felt they had no choice and couldn't face losing their original investment.

We live in a pluralist democracy where people are free to believe what they like. If the LNH believe that Manduca will deliver, and want to back that belief with yet more money, then that's down to them. You and I, I suspect, think that is a catastrophically *bad* idea - but they are (presumably) sane adults and it's their money (until they give it to Manduca, when it isn't any more).

My own view, oft-stated, is that they are now well and truly 419'd. Maybe I'm wrong - time will tell.

In the meantime; once the letter to the SFO has gone and the complaint is formally raised, I'll be CCing it to Stuttard - the utterly useless Head of AIM - to the mining Minister, and to Martin Matekane. We'll see what Matekane thinks about Manduca's ideas (quoted in the letter) around starting a new company to get rid of 'negative' shareholders (I'm guessing he means me) and a 13% shareholder who didn't even pay for his stake - a clear reference to Matekane.

Seems to me Manduca has 2 options:

1/ Let the letter go to the SFO and hope they ignore it (and that the CCs don't stir any action); or
2/ Buy my shares from me and remove my locus standi

The letter goes next Monday.