Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Patisserie Holdings LSE:CAKE London Ordinary Share GB00BM4NV504 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 429.50p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0 05:30:42
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Food Producers 114.2 20.2 16.4 26.3 446.08

Patisserie Share Discussion Threads

Showing 2101 to 2124 of 2125 messages
Chat Pages: 85  84  83  82  81  80  79  78  77  76  75  74  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
17/10/2018
20:11
The Risk charge came up last night - it was suggested that nothing was paid last week to satisfy it & that it was still there due to previous poor admin. No idea, but it'll all come out in the wash, as it's clearly public.
thegreatgeraldo
17/10/2018
20:05
Is there anything about AIM which made this type of fraud possible which would not have been possible with a main exchange listed company? Can we ever trust an auditor's report again?
epo001
17/10/2018
19:58
Typo56 Does that show up in the original placing document?
ntv
17/10/2018
19:43
Holders might want to investigate the company records for Stonebeach Limited. Take a look at the notifcation dated 11 Oct 2018 of full satisfaction of a charge (amount unspecified). The charge dates from 15 Sept 2006 and noteholders are the original Scalzo brothers and Risk Capital Partners (founded by Luke Johnson). How was this charge satisfied? Was it voluntarily released or were they lucky in receiving payment in time?
typo56
17/10/2018
16:38
@Sleepy We don't know how much LJ has actually lent. I suppose we can assume the £10m 3 year loan money has arrived. If the money from the Firm Placing (about £5m) has arrived then only £5m of the bridging loan facility will have been used. Perhaps his total lending will be £5m if the EGM approves the Conditional Placing? By the time RNSs #9469D was issued he probably knew that Cannacord had a full book. I agree that he wouldn't have made the loans unless he believed that the company would avoid administration.
mrtenpercent
17/10/2018
13:32
BriliantTweeted
alexios1201
17/10/2018
12:47
Always do background checks on the board……..
cjohn
17/10/2018
12:33
The shareholders can voice their opinions at the Shareholders meeting on 1st Nov... I think the outcome of approving the loans is pretty much in the bag...
sikhthetech
17/10/2018
12:27
All PIs can do to avoid such swindles is take the involvement of certain entrepreneurs in a company as a red flag. There are thousands of other companies to invest in.
cjohn
17/10/2018
11:12
@Sleepy - Have to go offline now, will reply later
mrtenpercent
17/10/2018
11:09
@Mr10% I am very open to correction on this but I think LJ has made 2 loans of £10 million each to the company. One is repayable from the proceeds of the placing and the other in 3 years time I don’t think he would have made those loans unless he believed that a) the company would avoid administration and b) that the company would have sufficient funds in the near future to repay the short term loan
sleepy
17/10/2018
10:39
So who was paying the interest on this overdraft ??? or was it FREE of charge How was it recorded in the accounts ??? Does anyone know if it is FRAUD to issue OPTIONs to Directors on the basis of false information ? And then for them to sell in the market and bag the PROFIT Is it FRAUD ????
hvs
17/10/2018
10:29
The other thing is surely company bank statements are sent to the company. Multiple people need to have access to this information. It will be interesting to find out what has gone wrong here...
allstar4eva
17/10/2018
10:23
So the auditors were running this cowboy outfit ???? Were they awarded OPTIONs for such stellar performance. Bust in 4 years from IPO and no one no one knows nothing it was the MONKEY.
hvs
17/10/2018
10:19
Some excellent commentary on this board in the last couple of days. With companies starting to go after auditors, and the latter already under pressure from public opinion they may have to start pushing back. For example If I were an auditor I would from now on be noting in my opinion if a trading subsidiary had refused to publish a cash flow statement. One of the best general outcomes is if this pro-fraud decision by the FRC could be reversed.
hpcg
17/10/2018
09:57
Was the £ 28mill there ??? Was it ?? Then it is a £ 10 mill overdraft. They was going to make £ 31 mill in year to September then they says £ 12 mill now it seems they say they know nothing only PwC knows , did they lie on Friday when they said £ 12 mill ??? Was tha a lie ? What a shambles in a Company once valued at £ 450 mill with OPTIONs and CAKE galore.
hvs
17/10/2018
09:55
If you had 28m in an account wouldn't you check the balance from time to time? People should go down for this. If a company states it has 20 odd mil in cash this isn't something that investors should need to second guess.
allstar4eva
17/10/2018
09:53
I would want to know how the bank account at Barclays was opened. If I was CAKE I would refuse to honour the overdraft. lol !!!!! Its always someone else , the auditor , the bank and never the GREEDY IDIOTS who all let it happen. Like I say the organ grinder goes not be boss not it was the monkey that did it.
hvs
17/10/2018
09:51
Quoting from article in The Times today : On Friday the company said that a preliminary analysis (they did not mention how preliminary was it a back of the envelope job) for the year to the end of September would achieve underlying earnings of £ 12 mill (before exceptionals) and revenue of £ 120 mill. However , now it says that the restated forecasts were on limited work pe4rformed to date and CANNOT BE VERIFIED until there has been further work. suggesting IT BE WEEKS OR EVEN MONTHS before PWC can VERIFY any figures. At present the Directors donot expect the suspension to be lifted until figures are verified and the finncial reporting function is appropriate for a quoted company. Investors are asking what the deputy Chairman Lee Grinsberg was upto ??? Most probably collecting his dosh.
hvs
17/10/2018
09:36
Johnson has egg on his face over Patisserie borrowing “I didn’t even know there were bank overdraft facilities,” said Luke Johnson at the weekend, talking about how on earth Patisserie Holdings, where he is the long-standing executive chairman, could report net cash of £28.8m in May but confess to having net debt of £9.8m last week. His declaration of ignorance was too loose. Under “liquidity risk”, page 10 of Patisserie’s 2017 accounts clearly stated that “short-term flexibility is achieved by overdraft facilities”. Page 38 recorded zero borrowing at the balance sheet date but repeated the information that the group “has a short-term overdraft facility in place”. Page 39, while stating that cash balances fund normal trading activity, added: “The group also has access to both short-term and long-term borrowings to finance individual projects.” So what, precisely, was Johnson claiming in the Sunday Times? Was he saying that separate borrowing facilities were set up without his knowledge? Or was he conceding that he didn’t know the true state of the authorised facilities? There is a big difference between the two positions. https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/oct/15/its-not-a-shared-stake-when-the-treasury-grabs-the-money
zho
17/10/2018
09:25
@Cryptotrade - What seems likely is that nobody on the board (except perhaps one director) knew of the hidden overdrafts. But did the board know of the accounts on which the overdrafts existed? Two alternatives? (a) Nobody on the board (except perhaps one director) knew of the existence of the accounts - in which case how were they opened without the directors knowing? A company of which I'm a NED had to open a new bank account a couple of years ago. The bank demanded to see for every director their passport (I think they accepted scans of the ID page) and a recent utility bill, and every director had to sign the mandate. The mandate signatures and the utility bills could in theory be forged but I'd have thought it would be more difficult to forge a passport. Were these accounts opened a long time ago under less stringent rules? (b) Everyone on the board knew of the existence of the accounts (but not the overdrafts) - in which case why wasn't the Audit Committee aware that overdrafts had built up on these accounts? I'm trying to develop Questions A4 and A5 on https://cakequestions.blogspot.com/ - I'm not sure I'm framing these questions quite right yet.
mrtenpercent
17/10/2018
09:24
I would want to know how the bank account at Barclays was opened. If I was CAKE I would refuse to honour the overdraft.
rcturner2
17/10/2018
09:11
@Sleepy - thanks. "From a practical perspective, given how the City works these days, I think Luke and the brokers did a good job in getting necessary financial support quickly though I appreciate that certain institutions were favoured to the possible detriment of existing shareholders" - yes but if Johnson's £20m loans existed and were enough to continue trading why did the placing have to be rushed through? As to being "favoured" one has to accept that the shares may languish below the placing price for some time so I'm not sure how much of a favour it will turn out to have been. I'm wondering if a lot of institutional holders will sell at any price when the suspension is lifted, just so they don't have to show this company on their books.
mrtenpercent
17/10/2018
08:47
The auditors only know what they are presented with. They normally ask the main banker , HSBC what accounts do you have?The hidden account is Barclays . The fact it's not recorded, linked to the public accounts means the accounts have been fudged to disconnect itself from the business. It's clear. So at least one or two directors know about this. Why they did it, well, maybe they wanted a temp bridging loan but didn't disclose it. The reality is, auditors only know what's presented. As long as they have letters signed from the bank HSBC and the directors, they're covered. Barclays I suspect was a hidden account and possibly if you're saying it's been there since IPO could have been used as a cash balance boost at the start on IPO. Who knows. Maybe a shareholder suggested it on IPO.Gawd who knows but it's fraud. I don't hold.
cryptotrade
Chat Pages: 85  84  83  82  81  80  79  78  77  76  75  74  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
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:43 V: D:20181017 19:23:58