REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses 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.
It's like investigating your own actions. Hardly a recipe for independence.
That might be the case but there has to be an end game somewhere. If the Secretary of state doesn't get involved who does. I've read a lot of the information regarding the Secretary of states responsibilities with regard to audits and the companies act and I can't see why an auditor can't be appointed not withstanding the corporate governance issue. We have been assured the corporate governance issue is not a financial matter.
If there has been some corporate skulduggery as some have suggested then I can understand why GT felt they had to resign. If business has been obtained through illegal means then there is no way any auditor will take the role without completion of any legal case or unless instructed by the secretary of state.
It has always struck me as strange that the corporate governance enquiry was led by two NED's who are paid by DX oversee the management of the company and provide independent objective advice and support.
None of it makes the slightest sense.
Sister - the problem is, the Sec of State’s power was not really intended to be used in the current situation, ie when no auditor will agree to act for professional reasons.
It’s more for when a company just hasn’t got round to the task of choosing one.
Consider this: if the Sec of State appoints auditor X, what happens if auditor X has already refused to act? The Sec would have to find someone else. But any auditor is likely to have the same objections as auditor X……
That’s why I say the solution to this impasse must lie within the company itself (eg changes at the top).
I’ve never known a company have so much trouble finding an auditor. We must be the unluckiest shareholders in the world!
We don’t know exactly what the problem is, only that it’s something to do with the “disciplinary issue”.
But if the impasse goes on for much longer, you have to wonder what needs to happen to break it.
I suspect it will take big changes at the top, which have so far been resisted. If so, this will be the company’s main preoccupation.
In the short term, this would create considerable uncertainty, but there may be no choice.
Fair point Sister.. maybe we should have considered this months ago. Any of the shareholders owning over 5% could have made this happen. Even those under could by getting together.
It is quite obvious that ii's don't have the concerns that we have otherwise they would have done so. They will be kept in the loop and fully aware of what's going on. We don't know what's going on... whether they are onboard...or what conversations are taking place.... for all we know they may have buyers on the scene the moment we trade on the OTC.
P... Why do think this has not been referred to the Secretary of State ?
Perhaps we should try to call a shareholders meeting..... Can we raise over 5% ?
Everton avoided the drop so perhaps DX can too!
Pianista.. If DX haven't been considering strategic alternatives I'd be astounded. It is the BOD's responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders and prepare for all risks. They would have been fully aware of a potential delist and its implications for months and if they haven't been preparing for it then it is negligence of unbelievable proportions.
They have been burying their heads in the sand if they have been focusing on running the business, putting all their eggs in one basket hoping to get an auditor in place with a rushed audit.
I can't believe Gatemore ( an activist fund) would intervene and then sit on their hands and together with other ii's blindly support a never ending corporate governance enquiry, potential forced delist, reduction in shareholder value in some misplaced hope in appointing an auditor when they are swimming against the tide.
They can't be that naive ... surely. !
Sister.... I'm not sure on this. I thought it was discretionary but I think I read somewhere that if it is a forced delist there is wait to reapply. It doesn't really make sense to allow a delist and relist adhoc so I am sure there is some system in place. I think 5 years wait might apply to the nasdaq.
I 'm not sure a delist and relist makes any sense on the AIM. Sentiment and Goodwill to DX will be reduced. The same team will be in place who presided over this debacle and they haven't taken any responsibility for it. Are any new institutional investment possibilities really after due diligence going to get involved?.
If it goes to a delist and trading on OTC the decisions of the II's will govern what happens. If they want to jump ship and they find a buyer at a price they are happy with then I think there is every possibility it will be taken private. If they don't and stick with it there may be another strategy at play behind the scenes. I'll be scanning the OTC records as soon as I can.
It may be the case that we will have to make a decision in the coming weeks on our attitude to further risk. If it does delist transparency reduces and risk increases.!!
I have prepared myself to lose money on this investment. I'm not interested in investing in a quasi - private or private company, in a low margin business and a growth strategy that I'm not a 100% behind. I think it was quite telling that Gatemore are not onboard with the growth strategy.
They've had six months and if they best they can come up with is..."we are still hoping to appoint an auditor" I'm afraid they are not people who instill much faith in my opinion.
I've not seen any reference in the AIM rules to a 5 year wait, or a wait of any length for that matter.
So as far as I'm aware as long as the company has everything up to date, it can be readmitted.
My main worry right now is how long will the inability to appoint an auditor go on for?
I think its a five year wait to relist on the AIM but they could of course apply for the main market I suppose once problems are dealt with.
I still favour a merger though. !
I thought it was a 5 year wait to relist but I may be wrong. Does anyone know ?
What is happening – or not happening! – is extremely disappointing and worrying, and we must brace ourselves for a delisting, though if we do get news of an auditor's appointment imminently, the chances are it can be avoided.
However, delisting - which no one has asked for - need not be permanent. Indeed, I would say the first DUTY of the BOD would be simply to restore the listing - and as soon as possible.
Assuming the failure to appoint an auditor does not continue for too much longer, I would think they could reapply to AIM as soon as next year - I’m not aware, having quickly checked the AIM rules, of any “waiting period” on relisting.
So if delisting cannot ultimately be avoided, I would expect a clear statement from the company affirming its intention to relist. (Obviously they are not going to say anything unless and until delisting actually happens). This would take a lot of the sting out of shareholders’ criticism.
If the company failed to give such an assurance, I would expect shareholders to force the issue.
Meanwhile, there is no need for the BOD to be distracted by “strategic alternatives”. They need to just get on with running the business and, if the company is delisted, reapplying to AIM.
If Dx were serious about bringing this suspension to an end and maintaining their AIM listing I don't know why a GM hasn't been called and DX's failure to appoint an auditor has not been referred to to the Secretary of State for an appointment.
The decision has obviously been made they that don't see any value in maintaining this listing.
I can't remember who said it but a Merge looks the likely option moving forward as I can't see where the substantial money is coming from to drive the business forward.
Shareholders are meant to be treated equally..... let's hope that's true !