London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Croth agree, thats why there is a case for the Nomad and old bod to answer, it was a deliberate fraudulent activity by them to issues shares after suspension to cover the the naked short selling, nothing to do with having assets ready to be invested in as they implied and misled the investors- it was a blatant lie and they have acknowledged as such- I think there is a strong case for the company to take them to the cleaners.
Any deals that didn't settle within a sensible timeframe should be retrospectively be made null and void. I'd happily have my money back and forget that NEW ever existed. Yes it was a gamble/punt based on the situation they created for themselves (I won't claim to have been in before it all kicked off) but going into suspension for such a long length of time until the new shares were forced into existence (against the wishes of the original EGM vote) was crooked as hell. There probably wasn't a realistic way they could have resolved the mess once buy after buy order came in once the news of the forward selling broke but they have got off so lightly with a pathetic little fine while those of us caught up in it have effectively lost everything. So many mistakes were made. It was too slow to go into suspension for a start. A relatively small mess would have been expensive but possible to clear up. By allowing it to go on, they let it get so bad there was no way it could get sorted without shafting all of the investors.
From the horse's mouth....“Cornhill accepts the findings of the exchange and regrets what occurred. There was no intent from Cornhill and once the issue was known we co-operated fully to rectify the issue . . . Cornhill also proactively and voluntarily fully compensated all its advisory clients that suffered losses as a result of their trades in New World.” That's OK then. Big naked short seller compensates little naked short sellers and all is well.
Totally agree. A joke! - fine £210,000! - is peanuts to the broker as many other peeps bought at high price and locked in losing lots of money. Also I think it was under their radar when the scam legacy happened. Not too sure what others' opinions are. Not sure if FCA can be approached to make them into look further into the cases and fine them more. Was it not in the article that they (Cornhill) compensated the investors on their loses? How about the us - the pi?
What a joke! Loose change is how I would describe it. At the very least it should have been no less than the money they were paid by NWOG. As it is it looks like a token amount. No mention of the role the Nomad/Broker's part in this and no mention of the role of the directors either. Are they to be dealt with seperately? Or let off scot free?
not a big enough fine for the damage that was caused, and what followed.