Worthington Share Discussion Threads

[spikeyj] 31/1/2020 22:51

? performance related pay, lol?

[roydyor] 31/1/2020 22:46

It is hard work picking an investment such as RAP, therefore Allan Biggar has to pay for the expert advice. As with GSC, the Whetstone site needs updating.

Tim Lyle – Director, Group CEO

David Papworth Director, COO, Head of Corporate Finance

Tim Cartmell Associate Director, Head of Credit

Peter Halloway-Churchill Associate Director, International

[spikeyj] 31/1/2020 22:32

#367, davidkip, “The Directors still need paying [...]”

really?
why?

[sweet karolina2] 31/1/2020 21:17

Good job I didn't write it for their benefit then.

[bulgarian] 31/1/2020 20:13

SK,

I was going to suggest that the length of post / big words would be a hindrance to those with an IQ below room temp, but you beat me to it.

[sweet karolina2] 31/1/2020 19:47

Nah,

The morons and imbeciles won't understand the big words and will give up reading after the first couple of lines because they don't have the intellectual capacity to absorb more than a tweet.

[bulgarian] 31/1/2020 19:39

SK,

That's going to burst a balloon or lilo or two.

;-)

[sweet karolina2] 31/1/2020 16:47

A useful reference from the Law Lords dealing with the many complexities around TI. There was no "tortious inducement of breach of contract" as there was no contract. However the same basic principles apply to:

“Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor intentionally acts to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others. This tort may occur when one party knowingly takes an action that causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred…. Such conduct is termed "tortious interference with a business expectancy".

The above situations are actionable only if someone with actual knowledge of, and intent to interfere with, an existing contract or expectancy between other parties, acts improperly with malicious intent and actually interferes with the contract/expectancy, causing economic harm. Historically, there has not been actionable cause if the interference was merely negligent.”

There are a number of things a claimant needs to establish for a TI claim to succeed. An unlawful act needs to be committed with intent, and this needs to be the cause of the failure, which in turn needs to cause economic harm.

Where is the unlawful act (which must be actionable in its own right) in posting honestly held opinions on a BB? There is not one – I will repost my robust response to AE’s pathetic lawyer Ayub on its 3rd anniversary in 3 weeks. That was the 3rd and most pathetic attempt to intimidate me by a lawyer. The first was 2 lawyers letters – I faced the CEO down at the AGM and invited him to roll the dice – his company is in liquidation and I still hope to get him struck off as a director and have been in touch with the Official Receiver to that effect. The 2nd and best was a proper injunction, which was pulled before it went to court costing the scumbag lawyer (the plaintiff was himself a lawyer) £60k and ended up with me getting compensation and an apology from the SRA.

Where is the intent? part of which relies on knowledge – the RNSs produced by WRN did not give sufficient knowledge of specific relationships to enable anyone to intentionally interfere with them. The intent of BB posts is to warn shareholders and potential shareholders as BBs are read by those people, not by parties to a potential contract. If a party happened to become aware of them, so what? where is the intent from the poster’s perspective?

Where is the causal link from the posts to the interference? Ie where is the genuine evidence that a party was all set to go ahead, but changed their minds because of the posts? AE himself destroys this by claiming the deals were all still on the table for WHET to do. If there was such a causal link, why were the deals still on the table?

Was there a genuine business expectancy? No deal could proceed without WRN shares being tradable. AE’s own blog said that, before he removed it. The fact that WRN had no tradable paper had nothing to do with any BB post. By not producing audited accounts, no proper listing could occur and due diligence on any deal could not complete. Why didn’t WRN produce audited accounts (as required by the Companies Act regardless of any listing or DD issues) and then go on to produce the prospectus they originally said they would for a Premium Listing – we can debate all the reasons for that, but it is crystal clear none of them involved any BB post. It is also clear that the failure of WRN to meet the most basic Corporate Reporting requirements negated any business expectancy.

Was there any real harm done? The best (again according to AE) deal was eventually done by FGCN – look how that turned out. If there was any harm done it was to the business expectancy of WRN PLC, which is under the control of liquidators and the Official Receiver, who are investigating the cause of the WRN business failure. Surely the only people who could bring a credible claim of damages due to TI are the liquidators. I certainly don’t see any of the parties on the other side of the business expectancies bringing a credible claim – if they were genuine and not related parties, they are probably breathing a massive sigh of relief they did not end up in a contract with WRN or WHET.

Finally trying to tie in BB posters to anything which may or may not have occurred outside the BBs with some bizarre conspiracy theory will also fail, as conspiracy requires an agreement to commit unlawful acts. Where is the evidence (as opposed to unfounded assumption and self-serving assertion) that any such agreement ever existed?

Thus the whole TI thing fails at every single hurdle, not just for posters but for anybody. The only potential illegal act might be Stevenson hacking AE’s e-mails, but Police have investigated and CPS declined to prosecute and the private prosecution which was “imminent” months ago has sunk without trace. It is therefore clear to me that the whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and harass innocent posters. Trying to make an ex parte claim to ID people so they can be subjected to other forms of harassment and intimidation would require up front disclosure in the claim of anything which harms the claim – to meet that obligation the claim would need to be longer than war and peace! Failure to disclose would result in the claim being kicked out, just like the injunction against TW was kicked out as soon as the court was made aware of the material non disclosures – I would love a 4th attempt to intimidate me, as blowing it out of the water would be such fun, but it ain’t gonna happen. Thus, whilst the imbeciles and morons might lap this up, nobody else is remotely intimidated.

I don’t have an LSE account as it is a total madhouse and waste of time, so could someone copy and paste over there.

[roydyor] 31/1/2020 12:51

They are all waiting on LSE for Mizman to post the bombshell news Chapman promised for yesterday. Late notification again as usual with the team.

[jonhbri04] 31/1/2020 10:48

Dazza has finally beat me i can't stop crying.

[dynamitedazza] 31/1/2020 09:41

Johnny boy you have no idea what your going on about

You are about as bright as Woybore

I have a top City senior partner as my accountant You muppet doubt you could even afford an accountant 😘

Don’t worry about Dynamite he knows what’s what 😉

Sorry to burst your bubble yet again 😘

[dynamitedazza] 31/1/2020 09:37

Oh Johnny u mean the brand new Range Rover the one you can’t afford ?

My eldest has taken ownership of that lucky boy he is only 21 apparently the girls like it lol

I don’t need it now when I’m back in UK occasionally I ride my baby

Harley Fat boy - it’s just wow who needs four wheels when u can have two ?

You see Johnny boy I bet i grate on you Big Time dont I ?

I don’t just get under your skin do I Johnny boy😉

And u know what’s the best part

We are gonna have the biggest laugh at muppets like you and the others on here and ginger boy too

Soz to burst your bubble but I have enough ££ to gift my toys and property to Kids

You how ever
one has no kids
Two not likely to your a jaffer
Three an ugly jaffer
Four a jaffer Where envy eats into him
Five will be a bankrupt jaffer

PS can’t wait to meet you in the Strand

😂😂

[roydyor] 31/1/2020 09:24

Delaying The Persons With Significant Control (PSC) notification beyond 14 days is a criminal offence but I have never heard of anyone being sent to prison. The accounts are almost certain to be delayed.

[davidkip] 31/1/2020 09:07

SK - I guess under normal accounting you'd do exactly that (match the price paid to the 'in lieu of' sum). If that doesn't happen, then the fees are largely kept off the P&L. The auditors may take a view on this and revise things accordingly.

You have two possibilities here:

a) these 8.5m shares are simply shares in lieu of fees, issued to reflect the lack of cash at WHET, with a but of scruffy SH01 reporting. Unsurprising and not particularly noteworthy. [I see a RNS at RGM today where directors are receiving shares in lieu of fees, for example].

b) AB and Lyle have paid £4,500 in cash to receive 4.5m shares between them (the remaining 4m to parties undeclared) as a subscription.

Given that there *are* fees to be paid and no money in the kitty, the odds would favour the former I would suggest, but we can wait for the next accounts to see if that is indeed the case.


------
"sweet karolina2 30 Jan '20 - 20:50 - 386 of 442

David,

Your theory on the 8.5m shares maybe flawed as the price paid should reflect the value of the liabilities being cleared through the share issue. But then again corporate governance is so shockingly bad, it is entirely possible they could not fill a simple SH01 form in correctly."

[dynamitedazza] 31/1/2020 09:03

Ask ginger what one had already done to him lol

They say animals can smell a wrongen

I should have known 😂😂

[dynamitedazza] 31/1/2020 09:03

Johnny boy pop over and meet the rotties they would love a piece of u as much as I’m gonna have a piece of you 😘

[dynamitedazza] 31/1/2020 08:57

😂😂 u crack me - that’s y I’m non resident you muppet !

Johnny boy think what you want

But I will be having he last laugh on you and the ginger muppet rest assured 😘

[dynamitedazza] 31/1/2020 08:31

Woybore your papers are coming don’t fret

You won’t Be left out I promise 😂

[dynamitedazza] 31/1/2020 08:29

U see Johnny boy u can’t get under my skin like I do yours 🤪

Anything u can do I can do better

Anything u can say I can say better

NEXT

[roydyor] 31/1/2020 08:28

Let me know when he backs anything he says with proof rather than hot air! Just a link to a claim or a link to a court case is not much to ask.