The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
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.
£153K buy just gone through,,looks like its lifted the SP,,maybe someone as liked what they have heard at the AGM
1.65m trade showing as a 'sell'.
Uber does not have a saintly record, far from it. Uber don't actually know the names of the 100 other 'John Doe' companies. I agree it seems quite speculative on their part. Why is it they only seem to name the largest companies in the suit (convenient no?), surely TUNE should have revealed the other culprits as I assume ALL the transparency reports went through TUNE. Seems like they rushed the complaint (less docked legal hours than be thorough). Throw poo at wall and see what sticks. I'm not a legal expert, but there is definitely some similarities with the response Fetch gave.
"Very vague, no details, no explanation about R1. More waiting around it seems. Thoughts?"
Vague rns' continue as they did with rthm...
Very questionable events over the past yr..both at rthm and TAP...
I think it looks like TAP looking to for excuses before a profit warning... Like rthm, then Blinkx, did after the 2014 blog...
I'm ok with it DW. I was more worried there would be a below expectations announcement.
Always lots of questions though. It would be good to get a steer at the AGM whether performance is starting to turn or whether revenue loss is continuing at the same rate. At the investor show they said it would be lower but $40m is a big change.
Promising comments on the integration and other division. Buyback is a dead cert to continue.
Cash ok too given they will have incurred various one off cash costs of doing the deal, exiting people etc.
Given they were going to invest in some areas it will be interesting today to see where they have done this and what results they expect from it. The big question is when can they evidence material organic revenue growth?
Integration on track as Performance division struggles
Today’s AGM will hear that the integration of the Tremor Video and RhythmOne businesses is proceeding rapidly and well, and in fact will deliver greater cost savings than originally thought (now an annualised $20m in the current year).
However, while demand for the brand advertising remains strong, revenues continue to fall in the original Performance based business. We had expected to see a Performance recovery by now and on through H2. That now looks unlikely and to be prudent we are cutting our sales forecasts for that operation. With the Branding strength and additional synergies found, our earnings and cashflow expectations are currently unchanged. There is no news on the recent Uber issue, which we feel has been overblown considering there was no direct relationship between Taptica and Uber, and many adtech businesses are involved, not just Taptica’s subsidiaries. Finally, the $15m share buyback has been completed.
Very vague, no details, no explanation about R1. More waiting around it seems. Thoughts?
Was it not the other way around in the case of R1 when they took Dataxu to Court for non-payment of invoices?
Perhaps Uber seek advantage by getting in first.
I am not aware of the legal ramifications of such behaviour but it seems a little odd/mischievous unless Uber can prove that its business suffered as a consequence, beyond what would otherwise have been expected to have been the case.
Company 'A' engages Company 'B' (or even multiple companies) to provide services and company 'A' then refuses to pay the invoices, citing x, y and z reasons and then goes to Court.
Sounds a little like a speculative, pre-emptive bid, to my mind.
Hi, yes since Blinkx unfortunately (after Edelman).
My general take on the law suit:
I've read the legal complaint and it seems from first look that if Taptica are guilty of anything, it is quite small relative to the other listed companies (this is mainly going by the examples Uber highlight). Of course any way you look at it, there will inevitably be some reputational damage. I have a slight inclination towards the idea Taptica have been thrown into the mix just to blame them for the breitbart ('alt-right' website) adverts that the public informed them of; and recoup an image of a "progressive" company that doesn't associate itself with "right-wing groups" (you'll know this rhetoric if you follow the media especially in the US). This was one of the main points for Uber in the law suit with Fetch which they 'volunatrily' dropped after Fetch counter-sued...
At the very least, it's a side-objective
Hi Pottery. Take it you are a holder of Taptica shares?
Fetch response to Uber's law suit
'We are shocked by Uber’s allegations which are unsubstantiated, completely without merit, and purposefully inflammatory so as to draw attention away from Uber’s unprofessional behaviour and failure to pay suppliers. Fetch terminated its agreement with Uber months ago after Uber stopped paying invoices for services provided by over fifty small business suppliers, engaged by Fetch to place Uber’s mobile advertising. Following months of non payment, Uber eventually raised unsubstantiated claims relating to ad-fraud as a reason not to pay its invoices, but there is no basis to these claims ...
We vigorously deny the allegations from Uber and will be responding robustly to ensure we set the record straight.'
https://gizmodo.com/uber-claims-company-put-bogus-ads-on-breitbart-in-indus-1818583776
Correction: Sept 2018
I have heard that the Taptica Uber story is in todays Evening Standard. Anyone coming home from work on the London tube will see it. Let's hope all those business figures that matter are too pretentious to take public transport.
It might be worth finding the Fetch Uber law suit, I think one of the latest documents summarises the defence of Fetch, one of the points seemingly blaming the suppliers (impetus of the law suit on Taptica?)
YouAppi is 5th and 13th respectivey on Pixalates (fraud management company) seller trust index for video for September 2014
"when it comes to governance matters Israeli companies have a chequered record."
would you care to share any examples of these companies who have had governance issues that have hit the news on a global or even regional level please?
As per your point on US judges, I think you will find that just the law will be applied and not a fell of a judge described as "quixotic & arbitrary".
If Tap did not inform (via an RNS) that they were being sued by a major headline-grabbing international business and tried to keep it quiet, then that would have been wrong also.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Taptica do not want to be seen to be trying to conceal potentially bad news but it is amazing that all the nay-Sayers attempt to see this as wrong-doing or damaging to the reputation of the (Taptica) company.
Better to get it all out in the open now and deal with it later in a cool frame of mind.
Strong trading figures is the only thing that will put the SP in to recovery mode imo.
I hope that happens tomorrow, but is suspect we will get a soft update (ie. without numbers).
WG, try this (though not sure how it will come out once LSE disguise it but I'll correct if you get loads of stars).
https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?&SessionID=28CF0B128283CDAB89856C94C2A893FDB632BF43
alternatively try typing in webapps.sftc.org and go from there. Once you've convinced them you're not a robot you'll get to a search screen and use the search by name tab and put Taptica in and it will come up.
Good post Stevie btw-
STT1-
The fact is that most companies during their existence will face claims and counter claims regarding wrong doing of one sort or another by another party.
Granted, the timing of the RNS and the content of the 1st RNS in particular was amateurish by TAP.
However, true to form you are SPINING again.. blurring facts and fiction with a good measure of guess work regarding future calamities in order to create yet more disproportional uncertainty.
BTW- don’t bother replying to this post and please use someone else’s post as an excuse to carry on pushing your very questionable agenda here.
Tap clients know Uber are a sh-t company,,Uber are in court every week,,they lose every week,,then they appeal,,thats why they are burning billions,,probably in legal costs
It's for the courts to pass judgement, isn't it? And the court case is months away...
Headlines like this do not do TAP any favours, do they?
Uber claims Taptica (and others) took it for a ride
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uber-claims-taptica-and-others-took-it-for-a-ride-fnjk5lk98
How many of TAP's clients or investors would have read The Times and thought I must go home and then went home to read the court papers???
I think it more likely customers would have seen the headlines and investors would have seen the headlines and the rns, don't you?
It takes years to build up a reputation and seconds to destroy it.
If anything the headlines are a gift to TAP's competitors to use to win TAP's clients...
Can you provide a link to the uber court papers please
Suggest that you study the Court papers submitted by UBER. Twenty five pages!
Most of the evidence supporting the allegations are based on articles published on the Buzzfeed site in Oct / Nov last year
Start your careful research here with https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/ad-fraud-scheme-stole-millions-advertising-industry
It is quite clear from the Court papers that there was no contractual relationship between TAP and UBER so the RNS is accurate!
Furthermore, the specific allegations against TAP in the Court papers appear to have no substance – UBER’s advisers appear to be speculating on what might have happened, based on the Buzzfeed articles. Interestingly Buzzfeed do not appear to have focused their investigation on TAP they certainly don’t mention them!
I am of the opinion that UBER, or their Legal advisors, are having a speculative punt in making a case. A case which already appears to have failed when they made it against their agents – FETCH! No Win - No Fee. springs to mind.
It is further evident, in my opinion, that the author of the Legal papers does not understand, and clearly cannot summarise, how the digital market works. Any reasonable analysis of the summary submitted to the Court indicates that; if there is a failure it lies either with FETCH as UBER’s agent, or TUNES if their reporting software failed to perform correctly, and failed to integrate with TAP software, and that which provides the Transparency reports. I have no reason to believe that TUNE software is at fault!
My opinion is based on the Court papers, my understanding of how the system works, particularly as described in the Court papers, and UBER’s previous success in the Courts.
I spent many hours last night on this research and analysis – and based on my conclusions I doubled my investment in TAP first thing this morning.
All the above is my opinion and not advice – today has been profitable and I look forward to attending the AGM tomorrow afternoon – will you be there STT1?
May as well throw in some wild speculation based on another holding of mine. Let's see if the name Johnny de la Hey pops up in an RNS.
Fine by me. To me it says the management believe the company is undervalue. They are acknowledging the fall(s) in the SP and taking action.
Tomorrow should be interesting.