If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them 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.
No chance bankers lost billions and got off Scot free in this country because our MPs are useless and most out for their own agenda so this is a dead parrot although I hope I’m proven wrong and now the hyenas will move in on TC not one I will be trading all bets are off with that one and a shame for their work force it’s bounced back before but I doubt it this time with that Rns.
"@metemorphosid. In the event that a court awarded an amount per share to all shareholders then anyone net short at yhr moment the shares were suspended would have to pay. It's the same as when a dividend is payed."
Oh right I see. So in your imaginary court case, if you went long, you would get paid back because you would claim that you were misled into going long.
What if those who went short claimed that they were misled into going short?
"Who is actually bringing a court case"
No one.
FROM A "SMALL CAP VALUE REPORT " - STOCKOPEDIA
The Financial Reporting Council has only today imposed sanctions on KPMG and one of its partners for work done on the Co-Op Bank's accounts.
So which year's accounts would these be? FY December 2009! Yet again, we see how slowly the wheels of justice turn.
I'd also like to point out that cases like the Co-Op, Autonomy and Quindell are all very high-profile.
In the small-company world, dodgy accounts are much less likely to even be investigated. Tread carefully!
Who is actually bringing a court case??
@metemorphosid. In the event that a court awarded an amount per share to all shareholders then anyone net short at yhr moment the shares were suspended would have to pay. It's the same as when a dividend is payed.
Mike Ashley and Board are partners in crime and brought Deb into administration, few months later he will buy Debs. Then rest of investors have chance to go into litigation.
All I will say is that it's not advisable to make promises because 9/10 times you will break it in a BB thread that has your interest. Although there is one thread on LSE were I promised not to post on this year and so far have managed it. As for the courts - I guess the question really is "have directors been sued before for misleading shareholders?" "Have any court cases been successful? Surely a few directors have been fined or jailed over the decades from various misdeeds .. Debenhams will not be the first company to not be fully transparent in their RNSs imho. Look at this another way - if the directors had been in secret talks and suddenly a takeover was agreed at 10p..when in a previous RNS they stated there were no ongoing discussions - would shorters ..suddenly burnt by the share price rise be calling foul? It can work both ways so perhaps try to be a bit understand of a few shareholders still not being accepting of what happen here (yet)
Hi Pearls,
I'd not read the City/AM article until now. What do I think of it? Not much. I'm not a lawyer and that expertise would be needed to evaluate the merits of the argument. That aside, it makes no mention of Debenhams whatsoever; City/AM are hardly heavyweights in the financial press; Supreme Courts take ages to do anything and can reject the whole thing.
Basically, I'd infer nothing from that article to suggest there will be any change with Debs. Debs -- for former equity holders -- is settled and done. Best wear the loss and learn from the experience.
Atb
@Knigelk... I made an error in saying that apologies for posting again. Am I the first to make such a bad error of judgement here!
Have any of you gents used X-O(by Jarvis) or iweb-sharedealing(by Halifax)??
Interactive Investor will be increasing there fees starting from 1st June (from £22.50 a quarter to £40/£80), its time I left ii whilst its still free to exit/transfer (II has sucked ince the website update last year)
x-o and iweb advertise a simple flat trade-only fee of £5.95 per trade and have no inactivity or monthly/yearly admin charges...
I am a medium term holder so having zero fees other than the trade is ideal for me.
I'd like to sort this out over the weekend, any suggestions please let me know.
Ok just to humour you and to try and answer that remarkably silly question:
Who in a court would you be seeking to sue?
Your whole fictitious scenario is based on the premise that:
1. The Supreme Court rules that some one can be sued, presumably the BOD or the administrators, in the event of liquidation.
And
2. That ruling is backdated.
3. That a case is brought against said BOD and Lenders
4. That His Honour The Judge Lollington finds in your favour.
Then seeing as I am neither a member of the BOD, or a lender, no I would have nothing to lose in your fictitious court case.
Meta, do I take it from your comments that it would not be in your interests if a successful court case was brought?
"Who's bringing a court case?"
No one.
Not Pearls, nor SPD, Ashley, my pal KnigelK, or Wooton.
None of them.
They all have the same in common, windbags.
"this seems laughable." Only to you Pearls, we've tried to explain it as simply as possible. The events speak for themselves now. You've lost your equity and the court case is very unlikely. but if it gives you some comfort, so be it.
Daniel sounds like he works in finance or City. He sounds more for experienced around pure CF than me. For myself I have 30 years of investing experience, decades as a Company Director and periods working in the City in Private Equity. I'm not trying to mislead you, but try to explain what I thought happened and why. To help.
I don't intend to try and explain events again.Good luck with your future investments.
I'm going tp carry on hoping that my investment in Debenhams comes good, there's no guarantee, but at least I'm only invetsing money that I've mad from shortening the equity.....and importantly I can afford to loose.
DC, good comments.
What did you think of the recent CityAM article that was being discussed on here over the last week?
Hi Pearls
I wrote off my investment here late last year when the market started pricing it for admin. Psychologically, that helped in moving on when the end came. I'd been mitigating against the worst case scenario (hoping of course to never deploy my plan) from Q12018 which lessened the loss.
The BoD's statements became increasingly cagey and opaque - notice they talked of net debt, not overall debt, which could have flattered the £286m figure. They made noises suggesting a recovery was possible, without ever explicitly stating so. It annoys me they refrained from qualitative endorsement of how bad it was; quantitatively though, there was plenty of red flags. Deliberate deception or denial - we'll never know.
If there was going to be proceedings in any court, documents would have been published by now; and also the proper financial press would have picked up on it. Bottom line is talk of legal stuff will never get past talk - it's anger and part of people adjusting to their respective losses.
Atb
Atb
DC, I'd also add that it should have been made much clearer to shareholders at what stage / time did the BOD no longer consider the company to actually be a going concern? It seems to have suddenly happened in late March, but this seems laughable. As you point out, they would have known in October 2018 that things were this bad, I cannot see how a few months is capable of making such a huge difference to trading, especially when the company involved has a spread of shops across the country, and its average customer is hardly put off spending by the spat with MA.
Who's bringing a court case?
DEB Directors deserve to be strung up. Crooks
DC, we are all clutching at straws here until things change. The assumption by many is that they can't change. The Supreme Court judgement, if positive, will mean a change can occur.
Your comments are noted. To which I'd add how on earth was it possible for the debt to rise from £286m as at December 2018 to £740m in April? That is some going isn't it? And that is despite the Li and Fung deal automatically guaranteeing them supplies of various merchandise from February onwards?
Almost certain no court case will ever happen...might as well forget about ever getting anything back Pearls. There are a couple of points I'd like the directors to explain:
-- The Christmas trading update (published 10 Jan 2019) stated net debt of £286m; and,
-- The Presentation from 25 October 2018 (p. 21) showed 'increasing headroom' of the debt profile through peak.
Both of the above considered, can it be established when the directors knew this was likely to be materially different? And, if this was visible in January/February, why did they not update the market as they would be obliged to do?
I doubt this will ever be answered. As daniel.f points out, the statements they make will be thoroughly scrutinised by lawyers before release to ensure nothing litigious.
Knigelk, once a route towards possible compensation / Supreme Court judgement is made, expect many more who were supposed to 'never' post here again, to post again.
What happened here was so disgraceful that it needs addressing. Hopefully big MA will help spearhead things once we get going on the court action.
Tuesday: "this is the last time I will post here" Friday: apparently not !!!
Looks like a perfect share for yourself and Silver to invest your 5p p/s shareholder compensation payment from Debs when received.
Looking like DEB no 2
An uncanny resemblance is emergiing