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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Adzy: the UAE has “taken control of” the UAE Exchange business, according to a number of articles I’ve read, including a recent Bloomberg one. According to another article I’ve read, this particular transaction is normally a short-term one, and it’s very unusual for a party to such transactions to renege. Whatever the terminology, the UAE is apparently not standing behind Finablr in the UAE.
Rastuss I don't think the UAE Central Bank has taken over UAE Exchange it's just ensuring that current transactions are completed - From thias article https://www.thenational.ae/business/banking/central-bank-steps-in-to-oversee-uae-exchange-operations-1.994022 :
"UAE Exchange has halted transactions through its branches and online platforms, with the exception of the operation of a Wage Protection System which it is being allowed to operate "until further notice", the central bank said.
"In order to protect consumers, the Central Bank of UAE has required the exchange house to swiftly settle outstanding remittances and all other already initiated transactions," it added."
Perhaps the most interesting part of the article this morning on Finablr defaulting on a $300mm. debt is that it appears to be their UAE Exchange business that is involved. This business was taken over last month by the UAE Central Bank. If the UAE authorities are not standing behind this business, does this mean something for the parallel NMC situation?
You still confident in £15
When it comes to money people do strange things as i learned over the years -- These people should be stripped of assets in every company they own .. A FORENSIC team could get to the bottom quick /Rich people are normally ruthless and stone cold thats how most of them get to the top --
He wont say nothing! He will be sat in mansion in India thinking how can I hide these billions
Adzy where does it say "he will tell the real story"
Agree adyzy - there is much more to this. I wonder if more will be revealed by Freeh?
“I am at a loss to understand how Shetty and his associates managed to do this without someone stopping it/whistle blowing sooner”
It really is quite unbelievable... 85 banks and it still
Didn’t come out even thru MW? Well not directly anyway. ...and for shetty to now come out and say he will tell the “real” story is shocking audacity... I do wonder what the real motive was? How can Shetty turn into a crook at 78 and destroy what it took decades to build? He doesn’t seem particularly financially savvy so it must have been many others too... And where did all this money really go, there’s no announcements of major transactions anywhere... mind boggling.
Castaway: I couldn’t agree more. Astonishing. If this doesn’t make the LSE pay proper attention at last to UK-quoted companies controlled by a small group of overseas individuals, then the Government should take it out of their hands and legislate.
Rastuss, not sure how many other debts will be uncovered, but the fact they defaulted on Forex loans at UAE exchange indicates to me how little cash they had, I am at a loss to understand how Shetty and his associates managed to do this without someone stopping it/whistle blowing sooner - both CFO's in NMC/FIN were culpable (both gone now) and 85 banks didn't realise what was going on? The more that comes to light the more shocking it gets.
Castaway: ADCB have appointed Lazard to help with identifying the loans etc. That’s going to be expensive. But at least there will now be Lazard looking at the bank’s books (presumably looking at both Shetty companies, not just Finablr - the banks seems to be exposed to both) and Freeh, Moelis etc. looking at it from the NMC side. That should speed things up a bit. Shetty certainly was well connected, wasn’t he? 85 banks! How many more can there be?
IMO we will see further debt exposed within the Shetty group of companies - the fact UAE Exchange even defaulted on Forex loans shows the extent of the dire straits they are in.
And so did the prasanths! Who facilitated all of this!
Mrd: yes. Shetty got away in plenty of time, not wonder he didn’t want to risk hanging around in the UAE much longer. He might have ended up having to pick his nose with his elbow
They stole money from fin aswel lol.
“Every bank I’ve ever had a corporate relationship with have been sticklers for correct documentation“
I think you’ve been dealing with the wrong banks! Ha. There’s plenty who will slide over correct procedures to generate fee income. Maybe not hsbc, jpm etc but we can’t be so sure about the 80 others.
Adzy: I agree, as I’ve said before, that if the people on either side who signed the loan agreements were not authorised to do so under the terms of the banking arrangements between them, then the loan agreements may be invalid but even then the loans will have to be repaid. Though I suppose if the loan money has been siphoned off out of the company accounts to who knows where, it might fall to the bank to find and reclaim it, rather than the company. The banks would have had to be extremely incompetent, or defrauded by senior staff, for this to be the case. I can’t believe that HSBC, Standard Chartered or J P Morgan would have been so incompetent as to be involved in such a simple fraud (though Standard Chartered has form, doesn’t it?). If some of the 85-odd banks lent them money without proper formal banking arrangements being in place, and accepted a handshake from Shetty, then yes, the banks will be on the hook for the money, not the company. As I understand it, the Board has so far said it didn’t know about the loans, not that it didn’t know about the banking relationships. Maybe I give the banks too much credit? Every bank I’ve ever had a corporate relationship with have been sticklers for correct documentation.
Hey Rastuss, I'm not sure that is correct, would need someone with better legal background to advise, but from a little research it seems that there are several legal arguments on which a suspension, or even a cancellation, of repayment of bank loans can be based. In order to establish the invalidity of a loan agreement it is necessary to take into account not only the dispositions of the agreement but also the circumstances in which it was signed and the actual use of the borrowed money. It will obviously be necessary to audit the debt to shed light on those various elements. Companies that wish to reduce their debts can use arguments from commercial law, among which are those appearing below, in order to find legal grounds for cancellation/repudiation of part of their bank debt:
Defects of consent, for example:
1) absence of competence in a contracting party
2) direct or indirect corruption of a contracting party during negotiations
3) coercion through acts or threats of a contracting party
5) Illicit or immoral cause of the contract and/or Illicit use of lent money
@Rastuss - no matter whatever happens here - remember one thing, you are and always will be a c0ck suck1ng m0f0!!!!! I hope you lose your shirt on all the investments and shorts you’ve got on! If you have no interest in NMC, why the f00K you’ve got the most posts on here on a daily basis for the last few weeks! You are pathetic scum and a troll!! Enough said!!
His attitude towards you is not pleasant, I must say but it is understandable.I wish you good luck with your investments.
Sham189: thanks for this. Yes, I was forgetting that he’d been hit so hard by this shocking train of events. I agree with your remarks.
I apologise for my peevish and rather childish response in my previous post, Dogger, and hope you will accept this apology. I hope the shareholders will get something out of this in due course.