Plus Markets Group Share Discussion Threads

[harry f] 12/3/2013 13:49

You'll have probably heard me mention the Mustafa case in the past, one of them got convicted yesterday, 6*4 yrs to be served concurrently, appears harsh.

[squirrel888] 12/3/2013 11:04

I see Huhme has gone to jail - anyone connected to PMK going to jail yet - for corruption?

[harry f] 12/3/2013 10:39

Thanks pjw, I understand; appreciate the effort.

[pjw1956] 12/3/2013 10:15

Thanks harry, below is a press release & RNS. I am waiting for an any update from Strang and Harris and the FSA on approval for Angelo and Misra & LDX so it's best not to make any comments at the moment. Off out now


PLUS Markets Group launches PLUS Trading Solutions

Wednesday, 7th September 2011

PLUS Markets Group has established PLUS Trading Solutions Ltd ("PLUS-TS"), a trading platform technology provider enabling investment banks, brokers and trading venues to establish outsourced matching systems that are designed to be fully compliant with regulatory initiatives such as MiFID II and European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) as well as enable compliance with likely new categories of regulatory infrastructure.

PLUS-TS aims to respond to the growing demand from market participants to segregate or create their own matching systems. Until now, firms operating or looking to operate such systems have been faced with prohibitively high implementation and ongoing operational costs, as well as the time needed for regulatory approvals and systems to be built. PLUS-TS intends to deliver a low-cost, white-labelled solution, which will enable firms to balance their initial and ongoing spend against future revenue, while at the same time satisfying new regulatory requirements.

PLUS-TS leverages the Group's status as a neutral next generation operator of a Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) with its regulatory and surveillance functions, bringing them together with a new low-latency, high-throughput exchange platform, PLUSMatch, to provide an outsourced matching service. This is fully hosted and managed by PLUS-TS for a competitive ongoing licence fee per deployment.

PLUS-TS will offer a range of services that can be customised to provide a bespoke solution for each client in multiple locations with the option of central counterparty clearing where required. It will support multiple asset classes and allow connectivity to other centres of liquidity.

The existing PLUS1 trading and surveillance platform and its technology team are transferring to PLUS-TS, with PLUS Stock Exchange ("PLUS-SX") and PLUS Derivatives Exchange ("PLUS-DX") effectively becoming its first customers. Senior management appointments for the new entity, and a rollout schedule for product enhancements, will be announced shortly. PLUS-TS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Group, with an opportunity to syndicate out up to 49% of the equity to external shareholders based on demand and strategic fit.

Hirander Misra (former co-founder and COO of Chi-X Europe) who is acting as a strategic advisor to the launch and development of PLUS-TS, said: "PLUS-TS is a unique fully managed neutral 'exchange-in-a-box' matching and surveillance solution. It gives investment banks, brokers and trading venues their own innovative matching system solution that can not only help them comply with the new regulations, but also allows them to create new business growth opportunities across asset classes."

Commenting on the launch of PLUS-TS, Cyril Théret, Chief Executive Officer of PLUS Markets Group plc, added: "We previously announced that we are creating the next generation stock exchange and PLUS-TS is another important part of this innovative strategy following the launch of PLUS Derivatives Exchange to complement our existing PLUS Stock Exchange.

"A lot of trading, compliance and IT heads are wrestling with the problems of understanding what regulatory changes will mean for them, and what they will have to do, and how much they will have to spend, to comply with those changes. The PLUS-TS offering aims to take all the problems away for a fixed licence fee and provides a comprehensive solution for all concerned."

[harry f] 12/3/2013 09:49

pjw

You posted links a while ago regarding individuals FSA status and notice Angelo and Misra are still "Inactive".... I check regularly. ;)

You also mentioned via a link an average FSA timeline of 19 weeks for approval.

How long do you think they have been waiting? Is there a way to determine when permission was applied for? I'm guessing 6/7 months?

I suppose application could apply anytime after a company is incorporated but not necessarily on that date or soon afterwards (although it's clearly worthwhile doing this expediently).


...digressing, just one thing before I forget. Don't overlook my #626 on the other board, it's very important. I didn't post links, etc as I was hoping I'd get people engaged or counterarguments.... alas! If you need any detail, get back to me.

[harry f] 12/3/2013 09:42

Thanks pjw for the detail, good to have a refresh.... and in some cases learn what happened around that time, it helps add context.

I don't know what the significance is regarding the names, VJ resigning after a few days looks amiss though.

I'm sure you've seen this before, not sure about the claim in the link below that the disgracedbanker (David Mason) was the fella who introduced Connors to Plus. after all he was under investigation by the FSA from May 2009 before being convicted in June 2011.



Even if this was the case, how did Vardey not know this was a flawed concept?....and even if Pipeline LLC isn't connected (I cannot establish either way) to Pipeline Capital they had a website with the product displayed/ advertised. Pipeline Capital knew it didn't work.

One thing perhaps to note is with the incorporation date you gave it appears Connors and Vardey were interlinked heavily which seems to be the case as Connors left soon afterwards. Did Angelo(s) know that Vardey going meant Connors was off too, from the evidence later (inc offer for the dx business) it does appear possible.

Vardey being under pressure would ruffle the feathers. Everything would be in place at this time and it was just about running the money down, getting to the new year, moving things around and taking it from there. H2 2011 was a critical time for the company as I have mentioned before it was essentially forfeiting going concern status on the back of 2 things which we at the time at least a year old, had never made a profit and it must be questioned if they ever would. What I think is critical is the request and subsequent shareholder vote to appoint Brickles never took place, I can see why, because if he had later events would have been unlikely to take place.

I think it's also important with the benefit of hindsight not just appreciating the timelines here as per the company disclosures but as and when they occurred "on the ground". TS appears to have been effectively nothing coming into 2012 and shareholders saw it as this all the way up to June but behind the scenes almost half the staff of the company and various other assets had moved here in January.

As has previously been established there's numerous problems with this over a disclosure angle, and for the fact we had no idea (and the BoD knew this) that we had no idea what we were agreeing (voting on) to sell, we've been over this before. However what I think is also worth bearing in mind is what this "split" strategically offered to the group.

Under full timely disclosure I could see one angle in which the split would offer strategic opportunity to the group. We were told the sale process was to acquire funding for the group or sale of the group as a whole or in constituent parts. If you think about it splitting SX effectively in two offered another avenue, and this was monetising TS through an acquirer of SX, i.e. the buyer acquires the licence and PMK get the contract to support the licence and we continue as a going concern. On that basis it makes sense.

But as we know, what then doesn't make sense is how things pan out, and this only says one thing to me. That due to the split in January 2012 the sale which took place wasn't implicitly on the terms that what was disclosed. Effectively what the BoD really wanted is an acquirer of SX who did not insist on taking TS too, the facts tell us this.

So the "sale" as described to shareholders was effectively a sham. Despite the "split" perhaps offering strategic opportunity, later events show this opportunity was merely in the interests of related parties.

Digressing, it would be good if it is established at some stage:
1) What efforts were made around mid 2011 to secure funding, I cant see any.
2) If any takeover offers were made but not disclosed.

Finally I think quite rightly a lot of questions must be asked over the conduct of Basing and Smith. Stephen Hazell Smith who left around the time Theret came in as CEO quite rightly openly condemned the payments to the departing board. meanwhile Basing and Nick Smith have said nothing. Now even if these guys voted against the proposals I think they should have said something somewhere in the public domain against the transactions that took place, and I feel it looks bad they haven't as the real picture has become clear. Perhaps they thought/ hoped/ wished, it would just all be forgotten.

One thing I was reading a while back about Japan is that when a non-exec has served circa 10 years they are no longer seen as being independent. Nick Smith was on 6.5 years when he left, in light of the events that took place it must be questioned how independent he really was.

[old thumper] 12/3/2013 09:37

Clearly she's confused as to her marriageable status

[pjw1956] 12/3/2013 08:43

Old Thumper, Mrs Suzanna Elizabeth Bell ends as a Director on the 8 Feb 2013
JTSI with Mrs Suzanna Elizabeth Angelo start as a Director on the 8 Feb 2013 for 16 days

Confused I am

Suzanna Bell
27 Oct 2011 ⇒ 8 Feb 2013 (1 Year ) Director

JTSI LLP
8 Feb 2013 ⇒ 24 Feb 2013 (16 Days ) Director



JTSI LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP

Directors and Secretaries

Vj Andrew Angelo
Ms Suzanna Elizabeth Angelo
Mrs Suzanna Elizabeth Angelo

[old thumper] 12/3/2013 06:57

pjw,

But she was a "MRS" in both names?

"Not illegal
neileg | Wed, 28/03/2012 - 09:32 | Permalink

Under English law your name is what you are known by. There is no register of names anywhere - birth certificate is not proof, passport isn't either. As has been pointed out, it is not unusual to have more than one name for different aspects of your life and this is perfectly OK.

However, I would argue that the intention here is to deceive, albeit not with any intent to act criminally. Using a nominee arrangement is completely legal and will achieve the desired ends and keep your client completely in the right.


If this is the same person, one could suggest she tried to deceive to be married to Angelo?

[pjw1956] 12/3/2013 06:01

Old Thumper, maybe it's her maiden name?

is it illegal to use your maiden name in company formation Posted by nick farrow PM on Tue, 27/03/2012 - 16:08

As I understand the issue of
Anthony123 | Tue, 27/03/2012 - 18:03 | Permalink

As I understand the issue of using names generally the key point is whether there is any intention to deceive. Lots of women carry on using their maiden names either for all purposes or else for professional or other reasons. What worries me slightly with your post is that there is a hint she might be trying to "hide" in some way.

If your client has changed to her married name for absolutely all other purposes I wonder if she might encounter practical problems - for example in satisfying ID checks for bank accounts and similar?


Anonymity
Hansa | Tue, 27/03/2012 - 18:57 | Permalink

In a word ... no it is not illegal provided it is not an attempt to decieve - just look at Cheri Booth (professional persona) or Cheri Blair (political persona).

However, a better way to achieve this would be by way of a nominee. Any one from a trusted friend (with a declaration of trust) through to a nominee company (perhaps her own bank). She could even go the whole hog and form (say) a Delaware LLC to hold the shares on her behalf.

This way she achieves absolute (rather than partial) anonymity.


It is illegal
petersaxton | Tue, 27/03/2012 - 19:54 | Permalink

"client would be shareholder only but wants some small amount of anonymity as a shareholder in this new company - it is for commercial reasons only"

why do you think directors and shareholders are public knowledge?

I think it would be wrong to use her maiden name.The public should know who she is.


I have a client
Ding Dong | Tue, 27/03/2012 - 20:06 | Permalink

who is registered for everything - passport, council tax, personal tax etc etc as Sarah (shall we say) Smith, but at Companies House she is known as Sarah (say) Jones and her Company is called Sarah Jones Limited (she is a respected medical practitioner so name is the key)

This is because she has been trading for many many years (pre marriage) and all her clients know her as Sarah (say) Jones.

This treatment was approved by companies house (she has a note of matter from 7 years ago before she got married)

So I guess all OK - however, as previous posters have said, it depends WHY she is avoiding the public name


anonymity
petersaxton | Tue, 27/03/2012 - 20:21 | Permalink

she wants "anonymity" so it should be allowed to do it this way.

Hansa has the right suggestion if it is that important.


thanks
nick farrow | Tue, 27/03/2012 - 21:49 | Permalink

many thanks for amazing collection of replies so swiftly - the reason for wanting anonymity is that her business is "upper class" and unprofitable but her husbands is "lower class" and very lucrative! forgive the crass differentiation but I knew if I used retail brands as examples I would offend and she doesn't want the upper class clients knowing about her involvement


Not illegal
neileg | Wed, 28/03/2012 - 09:32 | Permalink

Under English law your name is what you are known by. There is no register of names anywhere - birth certificate is not proof, passport isn't either. As has been pointed out, it is not unusual to have more than one name for different aspects of your life and this is perfectly OK.

However, I would argue that the intention here is to deceive, albeit not with any intent to act criminally. Using a nominee arrangement is completely legal and will achieve the desired ends and keep your client completely in the right.


Companies Act says...
mookgirluk | Fri, 30/03/2012 - 11:42 | Permalink

According to The Companies Act on incorporation the details for the subscriber "must contain such information as may be prescribed for the purpose of identifying the subscribers to the memorandum of association."

So I don't see any problem with using a maiden name as it can still be used to accurately identify her.


thanks
nick farrow | Fri, 30/03/2012 - 13:17 | Permalink

thanks Neil & Mook



Declaration of trust
Hansa | Fri, 30/03/2012 - 13:54 | Permalink

No, it doesn't (need to involve a solicitor). It might be prudent to have it witnessed though.

contract law implications - directors usiing commonly known name
sdataw | Thu, 17/01/2013 - 10:07 | Permalink

It has been determined that this is permissible and that a person registering a company need use a name that may be on their official documents.

We all know that the company formed is a legal entity and affords limited liability. However, if it is established that the limited liability is lost as the director has acted imprudently or fraudulently, what is the position in contract law if proceedings are issued against a director using commonly used name? Could a defense that this is not a true identity work?

This is a hypothetical question- Any experience to share would be welcome

[old thumper] 12/3/2013 05:06

pjw,

Is it legal to use false names for Directorships if MRS SUZANNA ELIZABETH ANGELO / BELL is the same person?

If so I'll start a "Pay Day Loan" company with safe knowledge that no one know's who I am.

[harry f] 11/3/2013 10:12

I've had a look again at DX and it looks strange to me, doesn't quite fit together.

The 2007-2011 screenshots from Pipeline Capital below all seem to pay reference to FTSE MTIRS in one way or another.



From late 2008/ early 2009 respectively Hooper and Vardey were installed as directors of Aritas Financial which appears a subsidiary of Pipeline Financial Group. Both were still directors in 2012.

https://www.duedil.com/company/06697676/aritas-financial-ltd/people

...and then there's Pipeline Capital LLC of which Clive Connors was the sole director.

Now my feeling is that by 2010 I'd expect Vardey to know that the FTSE MTIRS concept was flawed. One could argue he was a director of a subsidiary and didn't know the inner workings of the larger group? Still this looks flawed to me.... I think he'd know one way or another even if it was nothing more than word of mouth. I suppose Connors moving to Kepler illustrates that Pipeline didn't think the idea would work or else they would have developed it and kept him there.

Vardey was installed as Chairman of Plusmarkets in Feb 2010, and then Connors is installed in Dec 2010 as a DX director.

What I can't understand is how Vardey went along with all the DX stuff and didn't appear to specifically highlight what I expect he must have known already to the Plus board. I think on balance he must have known the idea was flawed, after all he worked for a company where the idea hadn't worked previously.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

[harry f] 19/2/2013 15:27

I don't know how it all works pjw. if you look at the history tab in the Connors link it's limited to the time he was at Plus, after that he seems to have either lost of forfeit these powers because he left the role.

I'm wondering if he applied for FSA approval to run DX but was denied and then he had to find other directors who could gain this authorisation? But then again why did the FSA approve the sale?

Maybe it was sold on the condition that the directors would be the people who they are now?

What's also noticeable is there are various forms of "approval". Connors was just a CF1 when at Plus, now Anthony Shiret is a CF1/ 10/ 11. Maybe the FSA saw Connors as being fine as a CF1 but rejected his application for CF10/ CF11 functions?


Does this have any bearing on it all? or was it always like this?

https://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmBasicDetails.do?area51=true&sid=261614

"Unable to hold client Money"?

[pjw1956] 19/2/2013 14:56

Thanks harry, very interesting

Something that I did find puzzling was this

Clive Connors Status:Inactive



As mentioned earlier PLUS DERIVATIVES EXCHANGE is now run by

Mr Clive Richard Shiret, CF1 Director, CF3 Chief Executive, Start date 25/01/2013

Mr Anthony Lance Shiret, CF1 Director, CF10 Compliance Oversight, CF11 Money Laundering Reporting, Start date 25/01/2013



Connors bought it, but seems to be in the background

[harry f] 19/2/2013 13:48

Thanks for the links in #4654 pjw, I'll save them as bookmarks.

I reckon a few of the companies you listed earlier are well over 19 weeks now, and no doubt well over 6 months but I suppose like we have found there's a lot to fish through.

This is something I picked up on the FSA site for applicants, and found the COND table especially interesting.

[harry f] 19/2/2013 13:23

I'm not sure at all if I'm correct on this but these are my thoughts. TS did provide services to SX pre sale but I don't know if this Intra group turnover was itemised separately. Assuming there was no disclosed turnover prior to the TS-Icap contract, and assuming what Duedil say is correct.

First 14 days in June 2012 (and the months before) - £0 turnover.
Last 16 days in June (15th - 30th inclusive with Icap contract) - £147,872 turnover.

Now assume monthly contract value is £281,250 and we received one months contract value as consideration.

Then calculating the part monthly charge using 30 for days in that month

=(16/30)*£281,250 = £150,000 (Variance +£2,128)


...or calculating using 16 days of a total contract length of 273 days (inc end dates) with a contract value of £281,250*9 = £2,513,250

=(16/273)*£2,513,250 = £148,352 (Variance +£480)


....or calculating using 30.4 days in a month

=(16/30.4)*£281,250 = £148,026 (Variance +£154)


....or calculating using 30.5 days in a month

=(16/30.5)*£281,250 = £147,541 (Variance -£331)


All the 4 above are close to the £147,872 turnover stated in Duedil.



Like I said tho, not sure about this at all.

[harry f] 19/2/2013 12:18

Just wondering about the above which I said I'd expand upon.

Prior to the TS-Icap agreement there seems to be no evidence of a similar arrangement between SX and TS, therefore I assume TS would generate no turnover.

Yet on the Duedil financials page the turnover is stated as £147,872, remember this is for the year end to 30th June.

Could this well be a part month reflection of turnover arising from the Icap contract?

[harry f] 19/2/2013 11:23

Thanks pjw, good work.

It will be interesting to see what movement occurs with respect to FSA authorisation.

I'm just wondering why all the changes, like I said in #4653 there has been a lot of changes to the company, even after "Forum Trading Holdings Ltd" resigned which I can't find any detail on. I wonder whats going on? is a specific officer (person or company) appointed, money transferred and then they retire soon afterwards?

I totally agree it should all be heavily scrutinised by the FSA.

One thing I found was accounts detail for Forum trading solutions to the period ending 30th June 2012.

https://www.duedil.com/company/07608963/forum-trading-solutions-ltd/financials

The Icap contract isn't reflected in the figures as far as I know as it was only agreed the same month. One thing of interest though are the Intangible assets which total £282k, on their own more then the consideration the shareholders got for the sale of the company. I'll expand on this in a moment.

Finally have you got a search engine handy you use for director checking in the USA? I cant find one at the moment.

[pjw1956] 19/2/2013 10:43

Thanks harry, by applying for FSA Authorisation for

Global Markets Exchange Group Ltd

Global Markets Exchange Group

Global Markets Exchange Technology

Global Derivatives Indices

London Derivatives Exchange

Global Securities Exchange

Global Derivatives Exchange

Global Commodities Exchange

FSA Authorisation: Pending

Global Markets Exchange Group Ltd Registered in England and Wales
Company Number:

A Division of GMEX LLP Registered in England and Wales
Company Number:

(See post 4519)

the players Companies and all history should be scrutinised by the FSA, and we should find out with the links below if they have a clean bill of health, and can trade.

Hirander Misra


Vijay Angelo

[harry f] 19/2/2013 09:12

Forgot to mention changes at "Global Markets Exchange Group International LLP"

Incorporated 21st Jan, initially with Misra, Harrop, Delahunt, Angelo, Fth Investments LLP, and Forum Trading Holdings Ltd as officers.

The last of the above "retired" on 4th Feb.

Also 2 changes of registered address.

....and lots of other changes, see the downloads tab.

https://www.duedil.com/company/OC381790/global-markets-exchange-group-international-llp/downloads

[old thumper] 15/2/2013 13:44

NT what's the matter? have you left the oven on?

[nitaroo] 15/2/2013 13:09

Oh Bo$$ocks!