We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Worthington Group Plc | LSE:WRN | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B01YQ796 | ORD 10P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 87.00 | - | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
22/10/2018 10:57 | Also a 3,500 WHET share trade at 11.5p. Can anyone see the bid and the spread currently? | andy | |
22/10/2018 10:38 | A 23.600 sale of WHET has just gone through at 12p. | andy | |
22/10/2018 09:32 | Sk, Some interesting thoughts, as I say TI actions against BB posters never looked on, without further malicious acts also being attributed to them. I notice the number of posts is dropping, even in the LSE madhouse, it's as though those that were optimistic about WHET have finally lost the faith. | andy | |
21/10/2018 15:13 | Maybe the contract interfered with was the Numa merger. The key defendant could then be the Greenland Govt for not seeing how 2 bankrupt companies could merge and magically become sufficiently solvent to conduct the work programme on the licence. However the merger was not called off until after WRN had been put into court ordered liquidation, so maybe the defendant is the PPF for rejecting the CVA which led to the court ordering WRN into liquidation. Maybe the PPF were all set to approve the CVA, but they read some posts on here and thought better of it? After all I am sure all the authorities, who have unfairly and unjustifiably blocked the various ludicrous schemes to keep WRN alive, read all posts on all BBs and use them as their main form of due diligence when making any such decisions. However as the GEM coal deal proves, none of that has made any real difference as the deal has still happened through FGCN. That WRN shareholders have lost out on being beneficiaries of it is actually down to AE screwing up the NEX listing. All WRN / WHET shareholders should therefore get a Class Action together to sue AE. That would at least have some logical merit which fits with the actual circumstances. | sweet karolina | |
21/10/2018 14:09 | Not only that Roy, AE clearly said the deals were not completed by WRN due to lack of tradable paper (as also stated in the RNS you refer to), but remained available for NEWCON to do 3 / 4 years later. It is highly probable that the GEM coal deal done by FGCN was the basis of the WRN coal deal and had AE not screwed up the WHET NEX listing, would have been done by WHET instead of FGCN. The reasons why there was no tradable paper was because WRN had been told by FCA to ask for a suspension, whilst the impact of the change of business model on listing status was evaluated. The initial evaluation was that a (sub)Standard List prospectus would be required, which in turn meant audited accounts would need to be produced. That was the real stumbling block IMHO. FCA later raised the barrier higher by insisting on a Premium listing prospectus. WRN used that as an excuse to do nothing about prospectuses and audited accounts and instead pursue the Numa Minerals farce. The only possible defendant in a TI case would therefore be the FCA. Who would be the plaintiff? It could only be the Company that had its contracts interfered with ie WRN now under the control (by court order) of the Liquidator. The whole TI thing is IMHO nothing more than a smokescreen, which morons are using to try to intimidate posters, who as Andy rightly says could not possibly be held responsible without additional activities beyond posting on a BB. The TI smokescreen seems to start with the idea of Stevenson illegally obtaining e-mails (CPS dropped all charges and nothing has happened regarding the private prosecution) then they would need to prove there was a conspiracy to use the illegally obtained e-mails to deliberately interfere with the business and demonstrate that this was the key factor in failure, which it was not for reasons given above. The whole thing is therefore IMHO a smokescreen and there is no genuine intention to actually pursue any of it. However should I be incorrect in that opinion, then I am totally convinced any legal action would fall flat on its face quite rapidly. | sweet karolina | |
21/10/2018 13:50 | What amazes me is that anyone with half a brain believes a word uttered by Dazza. Nothing he has ever written has come true. Read his posts from a year ago if in doubt. He is a self confessed bb trasher and nothing else. | johnbri4 |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions