Worldlink Share Discussion Threads

[hugosamuel] 17/11/2016 10:05

A party will file a motion for summary judgement for dismissal if they believe they have a black and white case with no important facts disputed therefore a trial before Jury is unnecessary (because there are no matters under dispute for a Jury to decide on). As they claim all material facts are known and in their opinion, not under dispute, they are asking the Judge to make a judgement of non-infringement and dismiss our case.

They filed documents for this before the Magistrate Mediation process was started. I understand as this process is present (and mediation processes being encouraged without reference to the outcome), they need the main Judge's permission to file the motion for summary judgement at this time. Judge Sleet has granted permission for this which is what the Order says. So the first document from them explaining why our case should be immediately dismissed is for 28th November. We will have an opportunity to respond in December but I imagine both parties will have the same position from the recent Pacermonitor documents.

What this means for the mediation conference, I don't know. Either it will be cancelled or they will go through the formalities. Clearly they think they have a strong case for immediate dismissal and given they have pushed this after the Magistrate mediation process got going, I imagine they are in no mood to settle with us.

[warwick69] 17/11/2016 09:09

Hugo what does that mean in lay mans terms ? Sorry don't understand court speak

[hugosamuel] 17/11/2016 00:14

Tuesday, November 15, 2016: ORDER - The defendants' request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is GRANTED. Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion and Opening Brief due by 11/28/2016, Answering Brief due 12/12/2016, Reply Brief due 12/19/2016. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 11/15/2016. (mdb)

[borgny] 14/11/2016 10:56

I thought it was on the 17th November. Sure I read it somewhere on here.

[warwick69] 14/11/2016 10:22

Sorry 29th November is the mediation case

[warwick69] 14/11/2016 09:51

Not long to wait now for mediation hearing it's this Wednesday that will influence the pricing of Myclubbetting

[cromarty] 13/11/2016 09:59

I first wrote about Papillon Holdings (PPHP) when it joined the Sub-Standard List back in June (HERE) assessing whether it was “fit” enough for the squad. Well, I had no reason to worry as a mere three months later, it has issued an appalling RNS which will have the inevitable disappointing long-term consequences for shareholders.

As a reminder, Papillon is one of the many sub-scale investment companies with limited funds and was established to make an acquisition in the industrial and services sector which, I noted at the time, was previously was pretty wide.

Yesterday it announced that it was:

“…pleased to inform shareholders that it has signed non-binding Heads of Terms to acquire the entire issued share capital of myclubbetting.com Limited, a specialised betting and gaming related business, for new shares in the Company (the "Acquisition"). The Acquisition, if completed, would result in Papillon shareholders having a minority interest in the enlarged group (the "Group").”

As a potential RTO, the shares were suspended yesterday at 1.325p giving a market cap of £1.75 million and shareholders are now locked in.

So what are my concerns?

First, although the investment policy was drawn as broadly as possible I still think it is pushing it to make an investment in an online betting company particularly as the admission document pushed the energy and resources experiences of the Board of Directors; however, I imagine if pressed on this point, it would argue that it squeezes into the definition of the “entertainment” sub-sector of the “services̶1; sector.

Nevertheless, it still feels a bit disappointing.

More importantly though is my concerns with the deal itself.

Myclubbetting.com Limited is a reincarnation of Worldlink Group plc which listed on the Standard list (surprise) in late 2011 at a share price of £2.50 and was in liquidation a year later with over £4 million of debts and the shares suspended down at 8p. Its performance, however, clearly merited a bonus of over £1 million to its CEO, Neil Riches!

Upon liquidation, the assets were acquired by the CEO and others for £180,000 plus a future potential revenue share and that company is now called Myclubetting.com.

It enables local sports clubs to run betting services; however, this is a hugely competitive market. It was so when Worldlink went bust 4 years ago and is even more so now with recent consolidation in the online sports betting market.

On the plus side, it has had some recent press as Sam Allardyce, one of its brand ambassadors, had to step down from the role on taking on the England manager role. I guess all publicity is good publicity, right?

The recent abbreviated accounts of Myclubbetting.com Limited for the year to 30 April 2015 show losses to date of £2.7 million. I am interested to see more up-to-date financial information in the forthcoming prospectus but would be very surprised if the business is profitable at the moment or will be in the near-term.

By now, Papillion will have less than £700,000 in cash and once costs of the RTO are taken into account, it is highly likely that it will need to raise further funds to fund Myclubbetting.com. I can’t fathom why third parties will provide additional funding for a business and a management team that took a very similar business into liquidation a few years ago. Guess this is the Sub-Standard List though so anything is possible.

I feel for the shareholders locked in here as I reckon the share price is only going one way, as and when it comes out of suspension. I’ll review further once the prospectus comes out with a more definitive view on the RTO.





- See more at: hxxp://www.shareprophets.com/views/23633/papillon-holdings-a-shocking-deal-even-by-the-sub-standard-shockers-xi-standards#sthash.sVxX85OC.dpuf

[cromarty] 13/11/2016 09:46

Riches claims My Club Betting is due to launch on Europe’s Nasdaq (First North) stock exchange at a £10 share price with a value of £75million.

[cromarty] 13/11/2016 09:44

Just a reminder of the man we are dealing with.

[cromarty] 13/11/2016 09:44

But a similar scheme by chief Neil Riches fell into liquidation four years ago.

Allardyce had agreed to work with the firm, in which he holds shares, and had promoted it on television in his role as a pundit.

But our investigation found the company was run by a businessman who lost investors more than £4million when a near-identical previous scheme went into liquidation within a year of its stock market launch.

As that venture, called Worldlink, was crashing in 2012, 57-year-old boss Neil Riches paid himself a £1,076,485 bonus on top of his £223,500 salary.

Allardyce, 61, quit his role with the new firm — which promises lucrative rewards for hard-up sports clubs — immediately after he was alerted to The Sun’s findings.

He said: “The reason I joined My Club Betting was because I am so passionate about grassroots sport.

[hugosamuel] 26/10/2016 01:01

Seriously, his comments on WGP, MTV and PHE are clones! Paid derampers/hidden agendas/shorters with power to hold share price down (who are about to get their comeuppance!)/criminal marketmakers/been promised news etc etc.

I would mind except since his involvement in each, one is delisted, one has been in suspension 4 years and has liquidators in, the other looks rather unwell.

[apfindley] 26/10/2016 00:48

This time next year rodders....Or the year after.

[hugosamuel] 26/10/2016 00:46

Thanks apfindley, 100% agree with that.

I also think the undisclosed settlement might be possible because of this:

If Bloomberg & co win, they are unlikely to be able to actually recover their costs even with a cost award in their favour. They obviously feel they are going to win but no matter how confident they are, it is definitely not certain. It is a risk.

At mediation, if they agree parties pay their own costs, they are not in any worse position than the above scenario of a cost award they cannot realise. However, the risk is gone and they have certainty.

That risk, however small, is worth a monetary value. More than zero. So a nominal amount with the ability to say "undisclosed" is a good exchange for certainty.

Of course, QPRC have to post figures quarterly so if they win, at least we will be able to work out the range it was. Plus the WGP liquidators would comment on proceeds from the litigation in their report next summer.

[hugosamuel] 26/10/2016 00:32

You are having a laugh Warwick. Where have I posted we could win a lot of money in the patent case? I have expressly stated we have little chance and our opportunity lies in a nominal undisclosed settlement then going after patent licensing with a veiled threat behind us. You have been saying "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS" from this court case! Even yesterday, you stated "it could be many multiples of the £100 million figure". That is why I am calling you a mug. I absolutely guarantee you have not read the recent documents on Pacermonitor.

Why am I attacking you? Simply this, you have been wrong on so many occasions, more than the rest of the entire board put together and you come out with "aren't you repeating what I have been saying for years".

NO YOU HAVE NOT!!! That comment goes beyond the pale.

THIS was the moment my patience ran out and my frequent defence of you ends.

[eye2] 25/10/2016 23:01

lol just saw w69 on CR BB and popped over I thought this was dead, I still have these locked @10p ouch..

[warwick69] 25/10/2016 20:46

Are you not just repeating what I have been saying for years and we will all know by December

[apfindley] 25/10/2016 20:15

Yes Hugo wise words.A loss in this particular case is a total loss for wgp regarding further infringements so will be gameover.An outright win and large award is very unrealistic.A win plus conciliatory award (ie costs) might not bring the windfall, but will favour them greatly.A settlement and undisclosed "terms" with some form of exclusivity might be the likely amicable solution... Maybe bloomberg et al may agree to pay a settlement, knowing that quest/wgp wouldn't win anyway, and want the patents too in an exchange.The threat of taking it to conclusion and the plaintiff losing, and having to pay costs etc may force the above alternative to at least give future value in the patents. If wgp had to fight this themselves, it would've been gameover long before now.Hope remains of some value to come back, even if only a million to either put into mcb or to bring back wgp as a cash shell for another company wanting a market listing.

[hugosamuel] 25/10/2016 14:31

And worth stating, we don't actually need to win big on this one (although it would be nice). If we get an "undisclosed settlement", it doesn't matter if it is 1 dollar or 1 million as no one else will know so we can still progress licensing the patent to everyone else including back dating it or they face litigation. The unspoken threat being if Bloomberg, IDC & co can only get to a settlement rather than a full win, what chance does anyone else have in litigation against us? We will make a lot of money through patent licenses but need to not outright lose.

IF IF IF we get a settlement. In fact, unless there is a huge settlement or court win, 'undisclosed' suits us better IMO.

[hugosamuel] 25/10/2016 14:19

We are fortunate to have escaped summary judgement and have not actually escaped it yet (the motion has not been upheld or denied yet from what I can see).We need the Mediation to be successful but given the use of the Markman terms issued by the Court itself is being argued to show non-infringement by literal interpretation (hence their motion for summary judgement), I doubt that us clinging to the argument that a literal interpretation is nonsensical (on a patent we worded ourselves) will lead to anything stellar for us as shareholders. Maybe a result for QPRC and even NR personally but not the amounts we need.Mediation conferences often follow summary judgement requests. It is encouraging in relation to not being knocked out before even getting to trial yes but that is relative. I felt sure we were done for but we are still in there. That is a world away from a result in hundreds of millions being volunteered up!Maybe the parties settle undisclosed and just cover their own costs rather than being liable for the other costs.Maybe even a small settlement to make us go away but if you read the last document from David Moore, I wouldn't hold your breath.There is something to be said for the fact summary judgement wasn't issued though. But it has not been denied either. I suspect this is where the Mediation might be aimed at getting a 'let's call it a draw' outcome.Personally, I'd be happy to just not lose the case. Then I will feel less of a fool on WGP.

[warwick69] 25/10/2016 14:02

Ok so be it well we won't have long to wait now will we

[hugosamuel] 25/10/2016 14:00

Warwick, you are so far out of date on the patent case and the reality of where it is, it is laughable. It really is.