Watchstone Share Discussion Threads

[ettienne1951] 26/7/2017 22:09

A question was asked: "How strong a case do people think SGH has after all its due diligence? Caveat emptor and all that."

I don't think any private investor can answer that since they aren't privy to the evidence to be presented and argued in court. Any other response would be just speculation.

Personally, I wouldn't categorise events that must have led the WTG board to fully impair the escrow balance as "mere bluster" as the questioner put it. There again, I don't have a financial interest in the outcome.

Having once been a small PI in QPP years ago, my interest in the outcome is simply to learn from the court transcript of the actual events surrounding the PSD sale, and what led to the claim succeeding or failing as the case may be.

Time will tell.

[rogthepodge] 26/7/2017 14:44

I don't think Anchorage Capital will waste its own costs either Tom, unless
it knows it will win. Works both ways!

Fuzzy argument in that piece in my opinion.

But then is was 'written' by you know who.

[lydnem] 26/7/2017 14:24

Nicky numb nuts is a kin idiot

[kemche] 26/7/2017 11:48

I agree and therefore bought even more. Fine British company!

[bbmsionlypostafter] 26/7/2017 09:59

Worrying reading for the dunces still involved in this POS from the man who called it right.



...........So if one risk weights the shares accordingly Watchstone's fair value is perhaps (6* 0 + 4 * £30m) /10 = .................?

[rogthepodge] 25/7/2017 23:28

lol squire

[squire007] 25/7/2017 23:16

Time to buy some then ,,,, innit ..;-)

[bbmsionlypostafter] 15/7/2017 12:31

That ship has sailed, long ago.

[lydnem] 15/7/2017 10:04

You arent scared of making a fool of yourself are you numb nuts!

[rogthepodge] 14/7/2017 23:23

Law lord please

not interested in Master of the rolls

well Googled by the way

[dalesiders] 14/7/2017 22:49

Etienne

Don't mix it with Nicky Numbnuts. He expects to be appointed Master of the Rolls when Sir Terence Etherton packs it in. He has one off the greatest legal minds of our time. He knows a fraud when he sees one!

[ettienne1951] 14/7/2017 20:27

The Fraud Act 2006 deals with the criminal law.

Civil claims for misrepresentation are governed by both the common law and the Misrepresentation Act 1967. This is a civil claim - presumably to seek substantial damages.

The false statement may be made innocently, negligently or fraudulently.

An actionable misrepresentation entitles the innocent party to rescind the contract unless the court determines otherwise, though it may award damages in lieu of rescission. Damages are also available where the misrepresentation has caused the innocent party loss.

I've already given you some fraudulent misrepresentation civil caselaw, albeit not recent. For some more recent:

Eco 3 Capital Ltd and others v Ludsin Overseas Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 413. The Claimants succeeded. The Defendants appealed judgement but the appeal failed in the Court of Appeal.

Sears & Anor v Minco Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 433 (Ch) (04 March 2016). The Claimants failed in their claim.

Sear v Kingfisher Builders (a firm) (No 3) [2013] EWHC 21. The Claimants succeeded.

[rogthepodge] 14/7/2017 14:09

Etienne please can you explain where precedents for 'fraudulent misrepresentation'
are to be found, if not the Fraud Act 2006?

[ettienne1951] 14/7/2017 06:17

By 'independent judge' I was differentiating from lay people who also make judgements and express their opinions.

It's the law of tort that is relevant.

This is a 'Civil Claim' (emphasis added) that's been brought by one body corporate against another in order to rescind the contract and to obtain specified damages. The 'Fraud Act 2006' doesn't provide an injured party with such a remedy.

[rogthepodge] 13/7/2017 22:27

all judges are independent

wouldn't be much point if they weren't!

fraudulent misrepresentation results from section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, so can you explain the relevance of these older common law cases Etienne, please?

[ettienne1951] 13/7/2017 22:13

As previously stated, an independent judge will decide the case within the framework of the law, based upon the evidence presented and contested.

Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158

East v Maurer [1991] 2 All ER 733

[rogthepodge] 13/7/2017 18:11

misrepresentation would normally be a contractual legal issue

fraud would normally be a criminal legal issue

what do you know about fraudulent misrepresentation? it sounds rather exotic and unusual to me

have any cases succeeded on this?

can you name some?

I am genuinely interested (I own SGH but not WTG) but if it looks like these claims are fanciful, I might buy some WTG.

[ettienne1951] 13/7/2017 03:19

ayrshire1

S&G recently filed its claim against WTG (formerly Quindell) at the High Court.

WTG will file its defence, typically within 28 days of being served, and a hearing of the parties will be heard before a judge in due course if the parties haven't settled beforehand (unlikely imo, given the extent of the damages being claimed).


rogthepodge

I've given the definition of Fraudulent Misrepresentation, which is the tort being actioned. It will be a matter for a judge to decide based on the evidence presented/contested in the Particulars of Claim.


All

WTG cannot divest of any businesses until the legal claim against it has concluded.

[funkmasterp12] 13/7/2017 00:41

"The Board has decided that all remaining businesses will now be prepared for divestment. In readiness for possible disposal, the companies will be shaped to operate more autonomously, with Watchstone taking a more strategic role rather than seeking to operate the businesses."I mean, that doesn't sound like the MO of a company with high hopes about its trading growth.

[funkmasterp12] 13/7/2017 00:34

"It's quite clearly set out on the WTG website - you just need to do some research and it is clear that the trading entities are growing substantially"Which trading entities? At the last results revenue was up a smidge but EBITDA was down considerably. They even said they're considering a fire sale of the remaining businesses!I have to disagree that this is "hugely undervalued" and that buyers will come piling into a share which basically is now only existing to serve a court case and sell everything as quickly as possible.As for the IIs, a) I don't think anyone had heard of Beach Point up until they showed interest and b) many held during the Terry era (Dobell anyone?) so I don't think that guarantees anything at all.

[cheek212] 12/7/2017 23:25

The next stage I believe is that WTG have to put forward their defence which is likely to be in early autumn I suspect, thereafter not sure of the next stage - probably viewed by a judge who decides if the case has any merits but don't quote me on that, I might be wrong! I'm not a lawyer so don't know the ins and outs of the process.

[ayrshire1] 12/7/2017 22:54

I hope so too Cheek212.

Does S&G not have a deadline to meet if they want to go to court?