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.
Hi Grumps. They will be experts at presenting a stylised version of reality.
Sounds like a great witness to me.
Watchstone has accepted it is liable to pay S&G’s legal costs after PWC dragged the law firm into fresh litigation over its soured deal to buy a subsidiary from the technology provider...
https://www.law360.com/corporate-crime-uk/articles/1349291/watchstone-to-pay-slater-gordon-s-costs-in-pwc-suit
Forget any issues of urgency or time limits: Stefan Borson will be on top of it.
Just go back.
Read the VERY DETAILED RNS'S.
The claims and counter-claims.
The documentation submitted to the courts: not the gossip and waffle.
Then buy.....or don't....your shout. Lol.
All cases in law have time limits. Either party may make an application to the court for an extension if necessary and in most cases, with good reason, it will be granted.
Which bunch of shysters are trying it on this time? We've had a few, starting with 'Your Legal Friend', all failed miserably.
There is a time limitation on the potential case, matters are quite urgent, as the case has to be prepared and brought to court before that date.
Pantomime season in full flow, good luck with that.
Hi, could you point me in the direction of this claim please?
Potential new claim against watchstone group/ quindell. Lawyers looking for claimants to get the numbers up. Hopefully good news for ex quindell shareholders.
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/senior-pwc-exec-accused-of-leaking-client-info-in-63m-quindell-case-20201020
Should be able to read it here.
Atb , ktc
Many thanks: also in the FT.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/397abc8b-9abf-416d-b824-001a569fc237
The individual referred to as the "PwC head of restructuring" has now been identified as Ian Green.
At the time of the Greenhill/PwC contact he was head of PwC’s business recovery service practice. He was later appointed to lead the firm’s business in the north of England in August 2019. He has stepped down from this position in summer 2020 but remains a partner of PwC.
There's a really good account of the recent hearing in Private Eye 1534.
The article concludes " The case echoes that of Premier Motorauctions...PwC's restructuring team was brought in...to end up in an administration … Previous owner … alleged a conspiracy… The man whose team he blamed...Ian Green."
The case was discontinued when the complainant was unable to afford to continue.
I think I now understand the reluctance of PwC to identify Mr Green earlier. I would also speculate that clients of PwC who've had unsatisfactory outcomes when Mr Green has been involved will be reviewing their involvement with him.
Hi Grumps , good to hear from you.
Have you joined the ranks of the gainfully unemployed ( retired ) yet ?
Hope you and yours are safe and well.
What's your take on the outcome for Greenhills in all this ?
I'm not even sure what jurisdiction they were , are, operating under.
@strollerb : hope youre well, sir! LTNS!
Absolutely agree: if ANYONE has ANY doubts about what is behind this, read ALL the public court claims and transcripts.
PWC have made some VERY silly mistakes, IN WRITING, and this will have FAR REACHING effects, beyond this case.
This is going to be fun...and profitable.
You’re absolutely right, I don’t know what’s going to happen. I just think PWC won’t want this aired publicly any more than it needs to be and will look to settle. Of course if Watchstone’s case turns out to be as strong as they think it is then that settlement could be close to what Watchstone are looking for. IMHO. As you say exciting times and some further small recompense for the Quindell fiasco.
Having read the court papers and the Judges comments when this came to light I have come to the conclusion that if this case goes to court PWC's corporate reputation would be in tatters come win or lose.
Hence I am convinced this will be settled out of court with no liability and something about indemnifying Greenhills
I was just going to add, "However I expect you and me have no evidence either way, but we shall see. Exciting, and hopefully profitable, times ahead!"
""Won’t be the full amount..""
You have inside information? This isn't a case being pressed by a chancer out to try his luck.
WTG are VERY confident. That confidence probably only comes from strong evidence. Of course nobody knows how much but PwC better make it good if there is proof of causing corporate damage they might need to keep within their walls.
However, we have no e
They will settle admitting no liability. Watchstone won’t mind if the figure is right. Won’t be the full amount but it’ll be material.
By 'concede' I assume you mean settle out of court ?
Exemplary damages is unusual in UK law. My view, if exemplary damages were awarded against PWC, they would be finished. It would destroy their reputation. They will Therefore concede. Some of you may recall that it was my opinion that rather than being a tech firm, QPP was a law firm and the value in the business lay in the caseload. This is why I invested. The case load was UltimTely sold to Slater and Gordon for circa 1 billion. I did pretty well.
Its about time these so called accountancy firms are held to boot, The have been complicit now in so many frauds and accounting scandals at best only turning a blind eye. PWC and EY were involved with the recent collapse of the London Capital and Finance pyramid scam, and just look at ENRON and Arthur Anderson !!!
I think this is the original reference.
para 24 of https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/2371.html reads....
""In another exchange, in the period directly before the negotiation of the price for the PSD, Ms Jablko said that she had discussed with "Andrew", which it is said, in context, must mean Andrew Grech, whether to ask Mr Davies to "check back in" with his PwC contact "to see what Intel you can gather". It appears from the emails that such further contact, says Watchstone, was arranged. Ms Jablko told Mr Davies that "we want you to speak to PwC" and Mr Davies replied that he would arrange to meet PwC face to face on Monday, 23 February 2015 because "over the phone won't be easy". Mr Davies then told Ms Jablko, on 27 February 2015, that he had "an excuse to sit with PwC soon and we will come on to the debate re [Quindell]".""
There has been a small article in The Daily Telegraph (Saturday 22nd August) regarding the litigation.
It's mostly a repeat of material I've already seen, however, there's a small section I don't recall having read elsewhere:
"Further emails show Greenhill bankers trying to arrange a follow up meeting. Mr Davies told colleagues: "I will arrange a time to sit with pwc on Monday [sic] [23rd February]. It is better face to face as over the phone won't be easy".
In documents submitted to the court, lawyers for Watchstone claim: "It is to be inferred from this that Mr Davies was concerned that the PwC Head of Restructuring would not want any record to be made of such communications with Mr Davies"
There's also mention in the article of PwC having failed to disclose the meetings with Greenhills in disclosures to the FCA.
Oh dear, oh dear. What can PwC say?