Setstone Share Discussion Threads

[5miffy] 22/9/2005 09:10

If regs on AIM are so "light weight" then it is simply a government sponsored paradise for crooks in favour of city/insiders, in my opinion.

In which case it will ultimately defeat its own object.

There must surely be some accountability?

[johndavison] 21/9/2005 19:21

Hi Davew28

I hear what you say and I'm no expert but the rules & regs around AIM stocks are very light weight compared to full SE listings. Perhaps, and this is pure speculation, the guys that ran the company felt better about the merge than the advisors and felt they had a more personal contact with them?

That said they seemed to have gambled and lost a big prize. They have lost money thermselves and yes this holds little comfort as our monay has also been spent.

I'm not really sure what we can do other than hold on and wait for a deal, I don't think we'll get any joy from the regs. And action groups don't really work.

I guess we all got sucked into the pot of gold at the end of rainbow and thats what greed does to you.

[davew28] 21/9/2005 18:16

Thanks John. This is a similar, perhaps slightly less pessimistic viewpoint than the one I got from Tony. I think we are talking a long while off before the company ever comes back to market. I presume the dilution will include the £1.5m that has been lost. I still think that there may be something in the resignation of the adviser. If the company has gone against their advice and then blow all the money trying to broker a deal with a dodgy character it is a disgrace. Should we not have had some sort of vote prior to them giving away all our money?

[johndavison] 21/9/2005 18:06

Evening everyone

True to form Peter Burton has responded to my e-mail, I have always found this to be the case.

The deal has gone which I think most of us knew. The accounts have been filed and details of the collapsed can be found in the Directors statement - so if any one has a copy it would be great to see it.

I asked if that meant the company was in affect finished but the response was a positive one and I was assured that the Directors are activiely looking for the right deal, albeit a substantial dilution will occur.

Now I'm not sure the size of the dilution I guess that depends on the deal.

I hope this helps???

[davew28] 16/9/2005 20:05

FWIW, Tony told me that STN should have pulled out of the deal about a year ago. This would co-incide with the resignation of City Financial Associates a the end of July. I wonder if they were against the deal and the company decided to forge head against advice. Purely supposition on my part but may be worthy of mentioning.

Dave

[rebtif10] 16/9/2005 16:43

I think they ahve known this was going pear shaped for a long time but did not want to tell us. I think we really need to check out our situation because I think the lack of communication over the past 18 months has been really poor.

Peter Burton will probably not reply. He has been very closed and limited with his comments for months now adn will always pass you over to somebody else. Doesn't want to get his hands too dirty. WOuldn't be surprised to find he has resigned.

[johndavison] 16/9/2005 16:37

Has he not spoken to Peter?

I have just sent off an e-mail asking how it is all looking.....I must say I disappointed, which might be an understatement for most around here.

[bongo bwana] 16/9/2005 15:36

Nobby is still around John.

he just hasnt anything to add.

[5miffy] 16/9/2005 14:50

I think it's worth asking the FSA what recourse we have and that is exactly what I'm going to do.


I'll let you know.

[rebtif10] 16/9/2005 14:00

I think out of respect to shareholders, and the fact that we don't know what they spent the money on, they need to either get a circular put up as an RNS or post us an update. Surely they have been taking a salary for what they were doing and we don't know who is to blame for the fall out at the end of the day because we only have one side of the story.

Also, who are their advisers in this? Surely they should say whether this deal was a goer or it 'stank to high heaven'?

[bongo bwana] 16/9/2005 13:57

Guys - my advice is dont waste your time. If you want an example of how
ineffective any of the UK regulatory bodies are, in matters such as this one, you should check out the SLK Board on Motley Fool.

Now there is a story of amazing corporate impropriety and the shareholders have been rode to financial death. And what have the reulators done about it? Nothing and I do mean nothing.

[sharecropper] 16/9/2005 13:09

Do the FSA or AIM themselves not have some kind of compliance or Ombudsman system? If so, a letter to them setting out the issues and asking for their views would probably be a good start.

[5miffy] 16/9/2005 12:16

FSA are toothless tigers I'm afraid wehn it comes to AIM companies.

[rebtif10] 16/9/2005 11:50

I feel conned too. It was not on MWM who recommended Setstone it was written abotu in other publications too. I think they have been disgraceful in not informing us of what has been going on. And now, the accounts, as far as I am aware and previous post, are being filed late.

I emailed Peter Burton to ask who Tony Hoskinson was, a copy of the accounts and whats going on. Never heard back. I wonder why??

May I will give the FSA a call to see whether they can help at all.

[5miffy] 16/9/2005 10:36

Conned big time.

Do they expect us to believe that large sums were handed over to a crook without any reasonable safe guards? They are either stupid or much worse. In my opinion a criminal investigation should take place.

M.W Mitchel recommended this prior to suspension - what's does he have to say for himself - if he's not on his dial ups.

[chill3hill] 15/9/2005 22:38

I for one am willing to complain to someone if only I knew how to and to whom! Surely a company can't list, give news of a reverse takeover to gain interest and investors and then suspend itself and that's it. If it was that easy I would do it. These bandits have taken my money and given no reason, update or the slightest bit of comeback to anyone and this is simply theft. If anyone knows how we can go about this I would be willing to sign anything just to know once and for all if a floated company can do this. If they can then i'm afraid I will not invest in shares ever again. What's the point?

[rebtif10] 15/9/2005 15:11

sharecropper, is this worth a letter to FSA re suspension, no other news about from change of adviser and now, after a number of us bothered to contact them, we are now informed by a bb that it is dead.

I emailed Peter Burton the other week with questions. Obviously they hit the nail on the head because I have not heard from him at all. I think we have been treated badly in that they did what they wanted with our money, but never and will still not, update us as to what is actually going on.

Any help you can provide would be useful because I would be more than happy to draft something and post draft on here before sending off so taht other people can amended/add comments.

[sharecropper] 15/9/2005 15:04

If they were negligent, yes.

[rebtif10] 14/9/2005 10:37

Does that mean we could get together and try and get some of our money back. Tony Hoskinson had the nerve to tell me it was 'only the press of a dress'. I can assure you that I would not pay that for a dress!!!!

[sharecropper] 14/9/2005 10:28

Lack of due diligence and/or an inadequately or incompetently structured deal may amount to a breach of the duty of care owed to the shareholders sufficient to found a claim in negligence against the directors.

[davew28] 11/9/2005 19:58

Rebtif,

I did not find Tony arrogant just realistic. My real complaint was why STN hadn't done a lot more substantive investigation on the guy prior to giving over such large amounts of money. He said that they should have pulled the plug earlier on the deal which I guess is easy in hindsight.

dave

[rebtif10] 11/9/2005 17:11

Dave, why could they not compromise on the outstanding items if STN have invested so much. When I spoke to Tony Hoskinson I found him a little bit arrogant and as if he did not get on with the people they were dealing with. The word 'bolshy' comes to mind!!

[davew28] 10/9/2005 12:22

Rebtif10,

All I know is that Tony said that they were trying to recover as much as possible but that they wouldn't get it all back, especially given the fact that the recovery process outside of the UK would be even more complex and expensive than from within the UK. Remember this is a former Soviet state and chaos still reigns. Tony did comment that he had invested considerable amounts (a lot more than my £5k) and that he had already written this off.

Like yourself I see little prospect of any return.

Dave

[rebtif10] 10/9/2005 11:02

davew28, when I spoke to Tony he implied they did not have the money to cover legalities for their investment in SHG. Surely everything they invested with SHG was tied up legally and their is a clause in it about repayment if deal did not go through??? I understood loan notes were taken out to put some of the work which was being outsourced on site. What has happened they have upgraded the mine for nothing and the guy has told them to ???? off? Did he mention this at all to you.

I am pretty annoyed because I emailed Peter Burton and he never bothered to reply. I think they need to let the shareholders know the situation, but again, was under the impression from Tony they could not even afford to do this!!! Would really like to know what is happening. I am afraid I cannot see this share ever coming back.