William Ransom Share Discussion Threads

[playful] 22/6/2017 11:36

You couldn’t make it up...



They used our money to buy the freehold and the business was never in any difficulties according to an employee I have just spoken to and she has been with the business since 2004.

[graham1ty] 11/1/2017 14:29

Is there any point in turning up on 20th Jan ? Will there be anyone there to rant at ?

[davidosh] 14/12/2016 16:52

If you want to have a ShareSoc campaign and press release covering this then I can push it forward but we will need a shareholder with all the information to front the campaign and talk to Press etc if it gets picked up.

[graham1ty] 14/12/2016 12:35

Final twist of the knife this morning. Asked to vote through the destruction of value

[playful] 05/7/2016 16:34

It’s astonishing really, but Des just about sums it up..

Should a claim arise during a company liquidation process shareholders have very little protection and the guy appointed as the liquidator is personally liable for all costs if contested in the courts, so he is hardly going to put shareholders interests first as events here demonstrate.

[deswalker] 05/7/2016 15:45

davidosh,

Playful and I have just had an hour long conference call with KPMG about this situation. What we have found out is pretty shocking, not only specifically about this case but about how claims into small cap liquidations are handled in general. Basically, the rules are such that the liquidators look for every opportunity to allow a claim rather than go to Court to fight for shareholders.

Specifically, I don't think many people realise that the Costs for a lost Court case (and also quite possibly some of the claimed amount itself) are not paid for out of shareholders funds but actually by the individual liquidator who chose to take the case to Court in the first place. I stress, not even by KPMG in this case but by the individual employee of KPMG who was appointed as the liquidator !!! The actual guy himself with his mortgage and Ferrari and school fees to pay !!!!

So as you see, an individual liquidator is 100% motivated to not risk substantial financial loss to himself personally by going to Court no matter what the balance of probabilities is for a favourable outcome for shareholders. It is as incredible as that.

What happens is that liquidators keep discussing these claims for years and years to (hopefully from their point of view) eventually establish a sufficiently low balance of probabilities of success in Court as to be able to award the claim and tell shareholders to get lost. Conversely, for shareholders to get their day in Court the case has to be an absolute 100% slam dunk otherwise individual liquidators will not take the risk with their OWN money !!!

IMO this requires much further investigation and would make an excellent ShareSoc campaign if you were interested. It is a very simple example of a massive skew against shareholders in a situation which is supposed to be unprejudiced.

Des

[deswalker] 13/6/2016 11:34

From the report, the cash balance on 12/4/16 was £1.117m which equates to 1.32p per share.

Perhaps shareholders might now feel like calling KPMG to ask some searching questions ?? After all it is no longer "our" money we are attempting to save ... Indeed from the report the average hourly rate for correspondence with shareholders was £340, so a ten minute call will cost £57. Personally I would advocate as many shareholders call for an explanation as possible.

The main guy to talk to is Paul Liversidge on 020 7694 3312. He is the one who has consistently put a positive spin on this for years only to do an about turn without any form of explanation.

I do wonder what right of appeal or even legal action shareholders have at their disposal in such cases ? After all this is not a case decided upon by a judge, just the opinion of a single legal firm in a very complex situation. Shareholders have not even been afforded the protection of a second independent legal opinion in a case so complex that it has taken three years to decide on a resolution.

Does liquidation law really run like this ? Law firms arbitrarily deciding who gets the money ?

[graham1ty] 11/6/2016 22:45

Des, I have just opened my letter from KPMG.

Yes, it is all gone. Nothing left. I too feel misled by all.

Shareholders have been shafted.

[deswalker] 02/6/2016 19:45

To say I am livid is an understatement. I have been misled on multiple occasions by KPMG, repeatedly being told by Paul Liversidge that the other side is trying it on and they have no legitimate claim. Now we see that they have capitulated.

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference now, but we see what happens when shareholders keep quiet. I always said that the whole pot was at stake so why people were concerned at saving a few hundred quid seemed bonkers. So it has proved ...

But my real anger is directed towards KPMG for misleading me over the phone and towards the Board for all their dishonesty over the years.

[playful] 02/6/2016 18:37

It's all over and we don't get a penny....

As you are aware, a claim was submitted in the liquidation by the liquidators of Witham Contract Manufacturing Limited (“Witham”;). The Joint Liquidators have been investigating the merits of this claim for some time, due mainly to the complex nature of the claim. We have at all times been advised by Eversheds solicitors and have sought extensive information and answers from the former directors. The claim was in excess of £4 million and, after taking legal advice on the merits, the Joint Liquidators have accepted Witham’s claim has merit, subject to quantum. However, the funds held by the Joint Liquidators only total £1.1 million (four times less than the amount claimed), meaning that in the absence of a settlement with the Witham liquidators, the Company would be insolvent and the Joint Liquidators would be required to convert the liquidation to a creditors’ voluntary liquidation. What is clear, however, is that the shareholders will have no further economic interest and the Joint Liquidators must now put the interests of creditors (i.e. Witham) first, since future costs incurred would be to their detriment.

During the course of the liquidation, only three shareholders have contacted us on a regular basis to check on progress, being yourself, Peter Gyllenhammer and Alistair

[brumont] 27/5/2016 12:13

Des and Playful,
thanks for your series of posts above. Sorry, if I appear less than proactive.
If helpful, please add my and my wife's combined holding of 100,000 to assist in achieving the percentage required. Note however, these shares are held via Barclays as nominee, so I do not have direct access to annual reports or a direct route to KPMG as a registered holder. However, in the event of a meeting being arranged, I could ask Barclays for paperwork to be able to attend.
Thanks for your continued assistance.
Bruce

[deswalker] 27/5/2016 11:14

playful ... voicemail left and email sent to you.

[playful] 27/5/2016 09:52

Des, you are absolutely correct to vent your frustration and I have just spoken to Paul and told him it is bloody ridiculous and demanded a meeting be arranged for Ran & the chairman to explain to us what actually went on with the sale process and why Ran walked away with £200K

I will need to muster a fair share holding of support for the meeting so might need you guys to contact Paul requesting the same, I will get in touch with Peter and ask for his support for the meeting so between us that's over 10%

[graham1ty] 23/5/2016 20:30

Des, apologies on behalf of us all for not recognising yr work. I want to avoid duplicating calls to KPMG if someone else is on the case. It is all,rather depressing.....

[brumont] 21/5/2016 10:00

Graham,
KPMG's responsibility is firstly to the creditors, and only once all claims are settled, can they finalise the shareholders position. I assume that the late claim referred to above has not yet been resolved and may in fact have gone legal which would explain the delay. That however is supposition as I have no information on the current position.

[graham1ty] 10/5/2016 11:46

Any updates ?

I am suprised there has never been ( that I am aware) an attempt to have a shareholders meeting. I know we get updates in an annual circular, but is there ever any discussion of tactics, of what should be done to break the logjam ? I cannot believe the original big shareholders are silent. Presumably they hassle KPMG to extract their ( much greater than us) value ?

Do any of the original Board have any responsibility for decision making or is it entirely KPMG. They get paid the longer this goes on, but must have legal and fiduciary duties towards shareholders and extracting best value. Yet, it is now over five years ( yes, five years) since the delisting and nothing seems to be happening except a slow drip drip diminution in value.

At some stage does KPMG call a meeting and present the options ? This is still a company with legal and accounting obligations. Is there not an AGM ? What would be the process for replacing KPMG ( I am not suggesting this is necessary, I am just interested in what the processes are for making decisions). We're KPMG appointed by the Board, the shareholders or the Court ?

I have to assume that Fred and other large shareholders, who have much more tied up, are agitating hard still and we can rely on them to screw the best deal....eventually.

Or am I being naive ?

[brumont] 02/4/2016 21:28

Des, and/or any other contributor,
you have been very helpful in updating us in the past.
Can I ask if you have any information on the current position please?
I had hoped this one would have been put to bed by the end of this tax year....., but I guess that is not going to happen.

[esprit] 22/2/2016 14:09

any more news

[deswalker] 11/5/2015 13:02

As far as I can tell, once we officially notify them that we value their claim at zero they then have three weeks to apply to the court. If not then their claim lapses and we can distribute the funds.

The proposed meeting is to try and be as clear as possible what our arguments would be in court should they choose to go down that route. This meeting is aimed at dissuading them from taking it to court as we genuinely don't think they have a case and so it seems crazy of them to throw good money after bad.

I guess they will listen to our reasoning and then make up their own minds whether to take the matter to court, also bearing in mind that they will be expected to pay our costs should they lose.

Should they lose then the court will be able to see that we did absolutely everything in our powers to resolve the situation beforehand and hence should have no option than to fully award our costs.

[graham1ty] 11/5/2015 12:26

Des, many many thanks. One question: presumably the other side are slowly accumulating costs, but they could probably keep them to a minimum. Why should they come to the negotiating table ? Why not just let it linger on and on ? Can KPMG force them to put up or shut up ? At what stage can we actively force a judge/tribunal to rule on the merits and force a solution ? My one question: can we force this to be closed ?

[brumont] 10/5/2015 08:41

Des,
thanks for your update above.
I am sure we would all very much like to see this one finalised.
Bru

[playful] 29/4/2015 14:58

Thanks Des for taking the time and effort to keep this board updated – Sounds like we will eventually get what’s due to us.

[deswalker] 29/4/2015 14:25

As promised I spoke with KPMG today which was excellent timing as they had done some work on RNSM only this morning so I got bang up-to-date information.

After meetings with and written depositions by our management we now firmly believe that the other side do not have a case and we are keen to meet face-to-face to explain why this is so and to make some progress. Such progress will not involve anything beyond a detailed explanation of our position and that will be that. There is absolutely no intention of negotiating any settlement as we believe the case to be without merit.

Following such a face-to-face meeting and explanation the other side must then decide whether they want to take it to court with all the costs involved, including our costs if they lose. We will try to dissuade them from going down this route not just because it is obviously in our interests to do so but also because we believe that they would be throwing good money after bad which helps no one, and so it seems sensible to have one final meeting.

It may sound like no progress has been made for years and it has been very slow, but we are now much surer of our position than before.

We should get an annual report at some point and it is currently being prepared. I shall call again at the end of June for an update.

Des