Patisserie Share Discussion Threads

[knigel] 18/10/2018 21:42

eeza - it possible that (most of) the directors were misled too - we don't know if this is just the one individual or 3-4 senior personnel who provided the auditors with most of the financial information/statements but not all ...

[eeza] 18/10/2018 21:16

Telling investors, & potential investors, that the Co has £28m in cash whilst the true figure is minus £9m, would be classed as misselling anywhere else and liable to pay compensation. I fail to see how investors have not been misled.

[ntv] 18/10/2018 15:46

Try finding a solicitor to sue a solicitor. Impossible
Always use a recorder when with them it certainly pays :-0

[danny baker] 18/10/2018 15:33

I'm curious as to whether Marsh, the former FD will turn up at the general meeting and protest his innocence or try and implicate the other directors. As a shareholder it would be his right to attend. In the meantime I can't see any additional information being made public as it could potentially affect the limited information disclosed in the circular. I'd expect a trading update shortly after the resolutions have been passed revealing the latest 'discoveries.'

[sikhthetech] 18/10/2018 13:55

yes Tesco's court case going on at the moment..
Fraud can appear with any company on any exchange..Looking for red flags isn't always easy and I don't think anyone would have spotted anything wrong at CAKE... point is to learn from it..



Trial of former Tesco bosses continues amid allegations of overstating profits by £250m

[thegreatgeraldo] 18/10/2018 11:37

Desperate stuff..... Some spam to enjoy with the cake

[daniel levi bmd] 18/10/2018 11:34

FYI

Union Jack Oil. Their Time Has Come. Buy A Slice Of The Pie.... Here's Why!


You CAN have your cake & eat it. Read this...
Dan
x

[typo56] 18/10/2018 11:19

I wasn't going below £1.2bn, but I take your point.

Main market stocks aren't exactly immune. Didn't Tesco get done for accountancy fraud?

[augustusgloop] 18/10/2018 11:16

Typo,

would CAKE have made that list 2 weeks ago?

[typo56] 18/10/2018 11:09

Some of the most successful companies are also listed on AIM....

FEVR, ABC, BOO, DTG, DOM, RWS...

[hpcg] 18/10/2018 10:22

epo001 - One of the main risk elements of AIM is that it is where a lot of small companies choose to list now. Small newly listed companies are high risk. Potentially corporate governance standards would make for a better board but I'm not entirely convinced.

[cryptotrade] 17/10/2018 22:28

Mr tenpercent. I think you need at least two directors.

[sandy133] 17/10/2018 20:48

epo001.

Look at the history of the fully listed OEM plc,Directors probably stole £30 million.By the time the liquidator had found evidence of this they were out of time to sue the Auditor.I suspect this was on purpose as accountants do not like suing other accountants.
However nothing was ever done to the directors, they even escaped the insolvency service by claiming to be too old and ill for Directors bans to be imposed.
Whatever people say there is no real difference between the level of due diligence in a Fully Listed company and an AIM company.Look at things like Atlantic computer 25 years ago, the liquidator said that it had never been solvent but it still was a fully listed darling for some time.

[typo56] 17/10/2018 20:33

Sorry, I missed that last night. Quite possibly just an admin thing.

The Admission Document does mention other loans "secured by an asset debenture in favour of the loan providers". At Sept 2013 these stood at £10.43m. These might have been the shareholder loans of approx £10.9m that were repaid at floatation and this might be the 2006 charge that's referred to.

[thegreatgeraldo] 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.

[epo001] 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?

[ntv] 17/10/2018 19:58

Typo56
Does that show up in the original placing document?

[typo56] 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?

[mrtenpercent] 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.

[alexios1201] 17/10/2018 13:32

BriliantTweeted

[cjohn] 17/10/2018 12:47

Always do background checks on the board……..

[sikhthetech] 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...