Buy
Sell
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 Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 87.00 0.00 00:00:00
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Personal Goods 0.26 -5.29 -42.00 11
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
- O 0 87.00 GBX

Worthington (WRN) Latest News

Real-Time news about Worthington Group Plc (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles
More Worthington News
Worthington Investors    Worthington Takeover Rumours

Worthington (WRN) Discussions and Chat

Worthington Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
28/11/202000:08Whats App1,641
15/2/202016:05The WRN litigation thread99
08/2/202001:20looking for 7willt184
08/2/202001:18hoping for news of trading starting soon again20
24/11/201911:43Worthington news and serious discussion2,943

Add a New Thread

Worthington (WRN) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Worthington trades in real-time

Worthington (WRN) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
28/11/2020
08:20
Worthington Daily Update: Worthington Group Plc is listed in the Personal Goods sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker WRN. The last closing price for Worthington was 87p.
Worthington Group Plc has a 4 week average price of 0p and a 12 week average price of 0p.
The 1 year high share price is 0p while the 1 year low share price is currently 0p.
There are currently 12,869,645 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 0 shares. The market capitalisation of Worthington Group Plc is £11,196,591.15.
26/11/2020
11:40
sankaku atama: tnmrl2, thanks, yes, I've looked into this and it would appear to be the appropriate option where WRN shares are concerned for CGT purposes. Regarding waiting for an outcome involving shareholders getting their money back, personally speaking, I reckon there's probably more chance of Trump staying in office, the UK getting 10 feet of snow on Xmas day, and Fulham winning the premier league. That being said, I'm sure there are a few of us on here who would love to hear your rationale for thinking such a thing might still be possible. Over to you....
18/11/2020
10:08
sankaku atama: Anyone know whether WRN shares in their suspended state can be officially included as a capital loss for CGT purposes, or do we have to wait for the outcome of the FCA enquiry before they can be crystalised?
09/11/2020
18:52
knigel: Wonderful post over on LSE: “in life there are winners and there are losers” Indeed - there are also liars, cheats, scum and scammers who will go into the gutter to become a winner and screw the thousands who lose out so they can benefit - and this ex share is one of the best examples
27/9/2020
15:44
filthylucre01: Allow me to update you Arthur: - NO one has been sued - WRN remains in liquidation - FCA are investigating - FGCN is Dark and Defunct - WHET has no website - WHET has remained on mute for a year and a half - WHET is worthless
04/9/2020
12:28
jackjackjack1: knigel read the wrn /whet 120+ Pages with all the share holders names on it .dyno rod is on it selling all his shares but looks like he even shafted family members so don’t take it to heart IMHO
27/8/2020
20:33
roydyor: And this case implies that Tom and Co. were right! Rangers belonged to Green and Ahmad and not to Whyte, Earley and WRN. So the WRN accounts were false and the 10 million pound valuation that lured many investors was false.
13/8/2020
14:42
jackjackjack1: FGCN share price is moving I wonder why
02/2/2020
09:02
roydyor: 1 Feb '20 - 14:35 - 1 of 18 0 4 0 Https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070502/obg-1.htm 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.
01/2/2020
14:35
sweet karolina2: Https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070502/obg-1.htm 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.
31/1/2020
16:47
sweet karolina2: Https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070502/obg-1.htm 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.
Worthington share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
WRN
Worthingto..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201129 06:34:16