Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Watchstone Grp LSE:WTG London Ordinary Share GB00BYNBFN51 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -1.00p -1.04% 95.00p 95.00p 96.75p 95.50p 95.00p 95.50p 52,387 09:25:42
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Software & Computer Services 58.3 -178.0 609.0 0.2 43.53

Watchstone Grp Share Discussion Threads

Showing 3251 to 3272 of 3275 messages
Chat Pages: 131  130  129  128  127  126  125  124  123  122  121  120  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
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". 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.
ettienne1951
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.
rogthepodge
26/7/2017
14:24
Nicky numb nuts is a kin idiot
lydnem
26/7/2017
11:48
I agree and therefore bought even more. Fine British company!
kemche
26/7/2017
09:59
Worrying reading for the dunces still involved in this POS from the man who called it right. Https://www.shareprophets.com/views/30549/watchstone-shares-plunge-to-just-97p-bad-news-for-evil-but-should-you-bottom-fish-no ...........So if one risk weights the shares accordingly Watchstone's fair value is perhaps (6* 0 + 4 * £30m) /10 = .................?
bbmsionlypostafter
25/7/2017
23:28
lol squire
rogthepodge
25/7/2017
23:16
Time to buy some then ,,,, innit ..;-)
squire007
15/7/2017
12:31
That ship has sailed, long ago.
bbmsionlypostafter
15/7/2017
10:04
You arent scared of making a fool of yourself are you numb nuts!
lydnem
14/7/2017
23:23
Law lord please not interested in Master of the rolls well Googled by the way
rogthepodge
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!
dalesiders
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.
ettienne1951
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?
rogthepodge
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.
ettienne1951
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?
rogthepodge
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
ettienne1951
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.
rogthepodge
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.
ettienne1951
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.
funkmasterp12
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.
cheek212
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?
ayrshire1
Chat Pages: 131  130  129  128  127  126  125  124  123  122  121  120  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:34 V: D:20170727 08:56:42