Worthington Share Discussion Threads

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 04:39

And david and Woybore etc ie trolls u now accept NO ONE is out of Time

That’s burst more bubbles than west ham no doubt

Sorry guys - deal with it ! We are

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 04:37

David people are taking this litigation threat Seriously

U have not read my posts

Even IF that fails we still ID people what are you not getting David

Its not all about those luvly jubly envelopes - is that enough English for You David ?

A Summons is a Summons 🙄😘

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 04:35

SK has got way more animated since he gets his days are nunbered

Poor SK

So u don’t know which way to run now ?

Stand up and fight mate much more fun 😘

[davieh] 02/2/2020 04:04

Dazza - thanks for confirming that you don’t know the answers to the questions that shareholders are asking.

With regard to litigation, I’m sorry to inform you but you can’t sue someone for posting an opinion on a discussion board.

If WRN and Whetstone don’t want speculation on their business practices a then they just need to be transparent with their shareholders. Allan Biggar even promotes himself as a PR and marketing guru on his allanbaggarandcompany website yet he has failed to update shareholders on Whetstone in over 8 months. I’m sure even you can see the irony here!

You can try and dodge this FACT but until the company respects its shareholders, it will come in for valid criticism.

Finally, unless you can post any links or give any evidence of litigation then no one is going to take you seriously.

[jjw fan club] 01/2/2020 21:10

Troll thread.

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 19:30

"Tom is also right when he says that being back trading on the market again is crucial for the Company’s stated intention to grow by acquisition using its quoted paper; I therefore don’t see how the Company has an option other than to re-list."

Relisiting on any market is impossible without audited accounts, as required for any PLC, listed or not, by Companies Act. There was never any impediment to producing audited accounts (other than they might reverse the IMHO fraud in the interims) so the only intentional unlawful act which interfered with the business expectancy of WRN was committed by Doug Ware by not presenting 2014 full year accounts for audit.

The only Blog which seriously financially harmed WHET was AE's Blog, which caused the NEX listing to be canned by NEX Regulation.

I hope WRN / WHET shareholders will take legal action against the 2 people demonstrably responsible for their losses.

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 15:50

No WRN litigation thread would be complete without the great great granddaddy of them all:



"Judge Denis Lloyd told Earley: ''When you deal with other people's

money and public money, you must account for how you do it.''

The Judge added that he felt little sympathy for greedy investors who

had given Earley their money."

[dynamitedazza] 01/2/2020 15:27

Poor SK having a bad weekend are we ?

Oh dear oh dear oh dear not to worry won’t be long now and u can meet me 😉

[roydyor] 01/2/2020 15:11

Wavetower Rangers claim settled by BDO for just under 1m pounds. They state that this brings the matter to a close.

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 15:09

Thanks roy, before your thread tops up with:

Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:58 - 489 of 491 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:59 - 490 of 491 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 14:02 - 491 of 491 (Filtered)

I have put a few well researched and factual posts on there including the e-mail to the pathetic Ayub, which I was saving for its 3rd anniversary in 3 weeks time.

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 15:05

Disclosure of documents
The purpose of “disclosure” is to make sure that both or all parties know of all documents that have a bearing on the case..

Here, “document” means any form of recorded information, not just writing on paper. It includes, for example, pictures, emails, mobile phone texts, social networking messages or video-clips.

You must disclose all relevant documents

that you now have or
that you have had or
that are held by someone else who would be obliged to give them to you or let you inspect them or have copies of them if asked or
that were held by such a person
You MUST disclose documents that are HARMFUL to your case just as much as those that are helpful to it.

You must actively search for disclosable documents that you may have, though you may limit your search to what is reasonable.

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 14:40

From: [e-mail]
Sent: 21 February 2017 09:23
To: Ayub Sadiq
Subject: Re: The Publisher known as "Sweet Karolina"

Ayub,


Please ask your client to stop harassing people who post their honestly held opinions as is their right under the Defamation Act 2013. It is totally clear from the text of my posts that they are opinion and discussion pieces - all of which are based on theories developed from other situations as is explained. What damage are you trying to claim has been done and against what - an unspecified company, which may or may not actually exist!?


If you are so sure that there is no way that a potential future company set up by those involved with Worthington could ever possibly commit fraud, is your firm prepared to guarantee that they would compensate anyone who did subsequently lose money because that company did subsequently commit fraud? If you are not sufficiently confident to do this, then how can you in good conscience act to silence warnings about the potential for fraud to be committed, which could lead to the further losses for those who are not made aware of the potential for those losses thanks to the actions of your client in harassing those who have honestly held opinions based on similar relevant past experiences? You most certainly can never claim that an honestly held opinion on something that may or may not happen in the future is a false statement.


Your client has already shown that he is unable to secure sensitive information, thus I will not be providing further personal detail other than to confirm this e-mail address.


Adrian


From: Ayub Sadiq
Sent: 20 February 2017 16:33
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Publisher known as "Sweet Karolina"

Dear Sir/Madam

We act on behalf of Aidan Earley in connection with a claim in libel against an individual using the pseudonym 'Sweet Karolina' to publish false statements about our client.

The publisher "Sweet Karolina" has made the attached series of comments on the "Worthington Group - Charts and News" discussion thread of the ADVFN financial website. Our client has invited the publisher (through an entry dated 18th February 2017 in the News section of his website: hxxps://www.aidanearley.org/news/) to identify him or herself. The individual has failed to identify himself/herself but has now provided, through a posting on the ADVFN discussion thread, the email address "[e-mail]" as his or her address for correspondence.

In the circumstances, we would be grateful if you could let us have the full name of the real person using the pseudonym "Sweet Karolina" as described above and an address for service of legal proceedings.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,


Ayub Sadiq
Solicitor | McCarthy Denning
A: 49 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4N 4SA
T: [phone] | [phone]
E: [e-mail] | W: www.mccarthydenning.com

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 14:35

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.

[roydyor] 01/2/2020 14:18

The WRN litigation thread.

[knigel] 01/2/2020 14:16

LOL I have never "known" a more bitter, manic, deluded, sad paranoid individual.. as others have said - he never wants to explain or give answers to all the events that have happen to both companies. Then he wonders why others decide to do some research instead!

[roydyor] 01/2/2020 14:08

All posts concerning any past or future litigation should be posted here. Please supply links, not just accusations.

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 14:06

Knigel,

It is the

Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:58 - 489 of 491 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:59 - 490 of 491 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 14:02 - 491 of 491 (Filtered)

Thread

[dynamitedazza] 01/2/2020 14:02

Dynamite has the trolls on the run big time

They know it’s coming 100% they kno

Brave faces are us lol 😂😂

[dynamitedazza] 01/2/2020 13:59

Knigel I have done it get over it !

[sweet karolina2] 01/2/2020 13:56

What a surprise another meltdown:


Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:44 - 483 of 486 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:46 - 484 of 486 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:48 - 485 of 486 (Filtered)

0 0 0
Dynamitedazza1 Feb '20 - 13:54 - 486 of 486 (Filtered)