Worthington Share Discussion Threads

[knigel] 02/2/2020 09:50

Apparently dispite suspension, liquidation, no listing on NEX, kicked off Britdaq and no news for months.. JJW is happy with this because as a shareholder he will defend his investment. At what point does he decide perhaps to get a bit worried or perhaps start to ask questions? Shareholders are not suppose to be disciples who never question their directors (that's what AGMs are for).
Never mind me ...as an ex holder .. what about your fellow shareholders on LSE who have had enough and want answers... are they traitors ffs? Taking them to court for daring to question your gods? Grow up and engage your flipping brain and think for yourself! Unless you are not allowed to for some reason.
Btw I totally understand you might have significant funds tied up here..that you can't afford to see this fail..hence why you can't ever say or acknowledge the obvious negatives... but I am not someone who has a grudge ..just interest in wtf is happening here and why people like you are not doing the job of asking questions because you are right..if you don't want to ask questions as a shareholder then you are allowing people to do what they want without ever being asked "why"?

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 09:49

Woybore I’m afraid u really have a shock coming to you old man lol

And Woy give me one reason y I’m panicking floating around on my lilo in 32C Sunshine lol

Are u c c c c crazy

Living the dream old boy living the dream

What u doing today Woy posting on a chat room lol Coz u have nothing else to do or any one to see no friends no family just a sad lonely weirdo just like your mate Knigel 😂

[knigel] 02/2/2020 09:43

JJW lies! When have I ever said I want to see these companies fail?
What I have said is that shareholders should ask questions! I moan about CLP quite often as a shareholder because I don't believe in blind faith. If WRN and Whetstone do not come back - are you seriously saying you will be happy and defend this? Quite mad....unless you are not just a normal shareholder.....

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 09:13

Lol check out Woybore

Hey Woybore are we getting a little desperate about the pending litigation

Oh didums - too late pls man You is doomed

Doomed intell you 🤪

[roydyor] 02/2/2020 09:12

I see the hot air balloon is still panicking! No evidence or links from him concerning court cases I take it? I notice none of the team have mentioned on the litigation thread their one small success of getting the Nuna WordPress site closed down. The old information is still available.

[roydyor] 02/2/2020 09:05

1 Feb '20 - 14:40 - 2 of 20
0 4 0
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

[davidkip] 02/2/2020 09:04

Thanks Darren.

I can safely say I'm not a football fan - I've never been to a football match (professional or otherwise) and the nearest I've got is being chosen to be goalie at school. Standing outside in the driving sleet while people ran around a muddy field didn't really endear the game to me I'm afraid! I have been to a basketball game in the US, that was quite fun (albeit more for the rock concert vibe of a US sporting event). But I know many people are and that's fine.

[roydyor] 02/2/2020 09:02

1 Feb '20 - 14:35 - 1 of 18
0 4 0




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.

[jjw fan club] 02/2/2020 08:51

Knigel I'm a shareholder and I will defend my investment and your a non investor who everyday wants this share to fail because your not in it. So I would look up the definition of troll and you will see yourself in the mirror.

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 08:16

Knigel get out of your pampers you nut nut
Weirdo

There is some harassment for you to add to your list lol

Doubt Anyone would want me really off of here you included as I am privy to the litigation and This is of great interest to both share holders and trolls alike

Now go and pick up your dummy Knigel

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 08:12

Lol yes I see your point

Davie is obviously Scottish with a rangers link no doubt

[davidkip] 02/2/2020 07:59

Darren - could you do me a favour please and call me and DavieH (yes, we are not the same person) by different names? David versus Davie will do. Otherwise when you say 'David' I keep thinking you're speaking to me about something (typically something I've never said) and I start to worry I'm getting Alzheimer's until I realise you're in fact speaking to the other person (DavieH)!!

Much appreciated. Cheers.

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 07:38

U see my old jaffer Johnny u can’t even work Out what non resident is you muppet

What chance have you got in defending your case at trial 😂😂

It’s gonna be hilarious watching you in Court - pure comedy I would say 😂😂😘😘

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 07:07

Johnbri bring it on had many mouthy £wats always just that - mouthy

And Johnny we will meet test assured looking forward to it 😉

You will be tracked down and ID and you are going to be sued fo All you have

Which no doubt is not a lot lol but we will have what ever u do have

And u will be labelled a bankrupt old boy 😘

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 07:04

SK my muppet man Soz old boy Get mouthy all you want not gonna help you when I - we get hold of you - and we will 100% 😉 SK u gonna fight ? Or have u lost your bottle big boy NOT

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 05:28

Johnny boy my old jaffer Soz old boy but you will meet me at a time of MY choosing and that will Be your trial date

Make sure You turn up don’t be a coward my mouthy £wat 😘

[johnbri4] 02/2/2020 05:20

Brainless from Jaywick. You don’t understand what day it is so like the rest of your moonie mates, lying again.
Man so looking forward to Easter.
Where’s that lowlife lying welcher?

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 04:57

Off to my lilo now the pool party yesterday was a heavy one 🤪

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 04:56

😂😂😂 the trolls have B.B. taken to paying for posts on his thread

Oh David they are worried and David they are taking this threat to their finacial status (if they actually have one ) very seriously indeed old boy 😉

[dynamitedazza] 02/2/2020 04:45

Finally david we are enjoying all the speculation from the trolls as it shows actually David they are very very worried indeed 😜🤪

And i have had many many private messages also from share holders saying thu can’t wait for it to begin

Also had one from This site Where baby Knigel complained about my posts really Knigel come out of your pampers

I presume u got upset when I mentioned you to have now been added to the list purely for ID sake

I think this site also realised that it will be sucked into the litigation by way of providing info and posts etc

It is what it is and All ligit litigation should form part of the discussion as litigation can make a lot of money for companies David do u get that simple prospect ?