The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Got cut off. Just to finish:
"Half to creditors: £80k. End".
Sorry to read about your experience in 2011 Da_Master. But it happens a lot. Practically every contractor I have ever spoken to had an unhappy experience of doing work for a company, then that company going bust and nothing ever being paid out on his invoices. We then look at the Liquidator's Report and you see the Director/Owner took all the cash/assets/customers from the business a few months before liquidation for pennies.... Almost every story in the press has the same detail: "unsecured creditors likely to get 2p in the £..."
One of the (sadly) many problems with the UK insolvency regime is that Liquidators/Administrators will sit on potential claims for far too long. Costs then rack up. The lawyers the IP employs will be on a CFA (they get paid double if there is a recovery but zero if no recovery) and the IP may well be on a CFA himself. The avg insolvency litigation claim is for around £400k. They usually settle at around half that: £200k. The IP and the lawyers know that. Its all laid out in the Professor Walton reports I referred to earlier.
So if the Director has a fairly nice house that he bought in say 1998 or the early noughties that will have almost zero mortgage on it now. All equity value. Say that house is worth £800k. So the director can release equity to settle the claim. But his own lawyers know that aswell....so a cost game then kicks off over several years:
The IP's lawyers write lots of letters setting out the claim. The Director's lawyers respond. They are all billing time of course and they know, ultimately the Director has that asset. That game of letters goes around and around. For years. Why doesnt the IP issue the claim ? Because then it gets risky. If the IP eventually loses at trial he is personally liable for the Directors costs (which will probably be around £200-300k by then). But the IP is happy. He is also racking up "time costs" and also knows about that nice house the Director has....Eventually he takes an ATE insurance policy to cover him in case he loses. The problem is another game is going on there. The ATE policy for £200-300k of costs if the IP loses will cost the IP a 50%-100% premium. Not joking. Fact. Oh and this is the model that our friend FoMo is promoting of course lol.
Eventually costs are rising hugely as the trial approaches (both sides need a barrister at this point of course and they aint cheap). The Director finally agrees to pay, say, £200k and gets an equity release on his house. The IP accepts that £200k because he hasnt been paid a bean for the last 3 years working on this case and if it all goes pear-shaped at trial his ATE policy might not cover all the Director costs and he is personally liable !! At that stage the ATE, the barrister, the solicitor CFA and the IP CFA do what they call a "carve up". They carve up every penny of that £200k. Nowt left for creditors.
Mano version: case settled in 12 months at £200k. Costs: £40k. £160k left. Half to creditors:
Da_Matser
Your comment indicates that you are an IP or one of their solicitors.
Forensics
Glad to see some cogent argument in your second post rather than the abusive rhetoric of your first.
The fact remains that the MANO scheme relies on solicitors costs being removed from Court supervision or indeed that of anyone else. Stephen Baister (Director and still serving Judge) and Mrs Frances Coulson (Director of The Insolvency Service and partner of solicitors who have been paying Mr Baister as a consultant for years) confirmed this in public a year ago at the TRI conference.
Do run the numbers on the TRAX Aggregates case and you will see that the MANO scheme is stated to achieve nothing for the creditors.
Your reference to the Jackson reforms relates to the now prohibited legal fee arrangements.
I agree there is sometimes a case for the MANO type scheme but it is not the "all IPs should use MANO all the time" as promoted by Messrs Baister and Cooklin (see MANO presentations). Simpler cases do not need and should not use MANO at a 50% of the net recoveries (legals are often 15-20% off the top) as MANO's USP is to threaten the miscreant with outspending resources which if a lot like the SLAPP injunctions so beloved but misused by Kleptocrats.
MANO's BBL scheme is a case in point - a sophisticaed Bailiff type debt collection arrangement and a good use of threats against self evident bad boys and at no costs to the lender (who is not the general body of creditors.
IMO to be sustainable MANO needs more transparency and accountability.
Thanks Forensic, that explains everything including why you disagree with FoMo's understanding - putting it mildly.
I had a director do the dirty on me back in 2011, so before The Jackson Reforms. May explain why I didn't see a penny.
Da-Master: fair question. The answer is that Mano get their cases from Liquidators/Administrators ("IPs"). Under the Insolvency Act 1986, their job is primarily to maximise the returns to creditors. That is what Mano delivers.
Using the previous CFA/ATE model costs of cases ran at around 150-200% of the actual damages being claimed (reference the 2,000+ page Jackson Report on UK Civil Litigation). The Jackson Reforms, implemented in UK insolvency litigation in 2016, means that the costs (CFA and ATE) have to come out of the damages. Therefore zero return to the insolvent estate (creditors) because those costs exceed the damages awarded. Utterly hopeless for creditors and therefore IPs failing in their statutory duty if they use CFA/ATE. A disgrace that many still do. But things are much better than they were 10 years ago.
By contrast Mano's long term average is that costs run at only 15-25% of the damages (recoveries). In the main they do that by settling cases early. Avoiding the very expensive litigation stage of trials. Therefore creditor returns are exponentially higher under the Mano Model. That transforms the IPs work into a sustainable and ethical business. Which is why Mano's annual cases have risen from just 3 in 2010 to well over 300 per annum in the last 12 months. It delivers.
@FoMo Perhaps you could explain to me why I should give a rat's ass about creditors?
And prepare to be shot down by both FoMo and Forensic :/
FoMO,
You have been found to lie on this board before. The LSE has removed the more libellous and defamatory posts.
You now show a breathtakingly poor and twisted understanding of litigation generally and insolvency litigation, in particular. Your analysis of even selective cases displays further deep ignorance, eg IP fees and lawyer fees are incurred long before and long after Mano has done its job on a claim. You are either deeply stupid, in need of urgent professional counselling or have an axe to grind, because all this has been explained, at length, not just by Mano, but the entirety of the Lord Justice Jackson Reforms (which paid special attention to the CFA/ATE abuses in insolvency and pointed to Funders generally as the way forward); as well as the three reports done for the profession by Professor of Law Peter Walton.
I am not going to waste my time here schooling you. Its all out there on the web if anyone is inclined.
Or maybe you are just out to try to mislead investors with your "Fear of Missing out". Weird...
Get some help mate or maybe start a new hobby or something. Your toxic bile here is shameful.
Tommy
My post on ADVFN over a year ago (copied below) gives some guidance for further research. The TRAXX case is now more than 3 years old (one of the oldest of MANO's aged date sheet) and the Court records show no activity since issue.
Keep at the back of your mind that the MANO business model removes all MANO and IP legal fees from court scrutiny as provided for in the Insolvency Act and that Eversheds told HMRC that IP and legal fees are deliberately overstated and overcharged by 25% ish..
Conditional Fee and ATE will almost always be the best option for creditors.. IMO the MANO model is structurally flawed and unsustainable until they agree to have their legal fees subject to assessment (100% of that gain should then go to the IP and not split with MANO.
In the meantime the gravy train for IPs and Solicitors rumbles on.
COPY
"The adage "once bitten twice shy" comes to mind. Best to understand the whole business as far as one can.
The big "lost cause" had final order of the Court filed on 8 July, including the "consequential matters" (leave to appeal costs etc), after the judgment was handed down on 24 June. IMHO Mano were obliged to report it to shareholders more than 2 months before they did, and certainly on the date the order was sealed (which gave them 2 weeks to research it) and there was never any possible appeal to the High Court as you seem to think, because the judgment was made by a Judge. There was simply no excuse for delay. If I had bought after 8 July I would be tempted to seek redress.
The Mano business model is simply one of making threats. Recoveries benefit mostly Mano, IPs and their solicitors which is Mano's USP. Creditors get the bits left over - if any.
All Mano's cases can also be seen by typing "manolete" into the search box on
There is a lot of activity.
Any interested shareholder can then follow up on the CE-file site to the publicly available documents (fees £11 or £22).
The Traxx (Aggregates) case (issued 1 September 2022) is an interesting one to follow given that the Administrator reports (per Companies House) that there is unlikely to be any payment to unsecured creditors, and its mostly about his (personal 25%) and his solicitors accrued fees. Mano paid £10k upfront and an undisclosed share of any recoveries in Summer 2020.
The Zipp International case is an interesting one. Settlement £800k. Mano took £369,470.05. Claim is publicly available which shows the amount claimed to enable comparison against the achieved settlement. It was a funded case. IP and solicitors were the principal beneficiaries of the remaining ex-Mano funds which is the Mano business model exemplified.
Will be interesting to see how the future plays out in this lawyers and accountants gravy train arena. Will/can the Mano shareholders benefit as much as they think? Interesting to wonder if the shareholders returns will exceed the payments to creditors.
Fomo “I still think the numbers show that funding the IP is nearltyalways a better option for creditors”
Mind sharing these numbers?
Manolete Partners present at the Proactive One2One Investor Forum - October 26th
Duration: 22:46
https://youtu.be/PQGW61WXyps?si=xFlGcCAGULNOQEDA
I think I heard the comment that MANO is now staring to reach out for settlement agreements on the Truck cases.
Interesting comment on how MANO's business model is based on making "threats" that others can't or won't make.
I still think the numbers show that funding the IP is nearltyalways a better option for creditors.
Thanks a mint, tommy15. Nothing earth-shattering. Definitely not worth the train journey from the south coast!
But still a hold and hoping will come good in short order
Limited updates:
- cash collection has continued well, even since the TU
- made a point that there are a ton of NDAs around the BBL stuff; hinted heavily that there's a lot going on that he can't discuss.
- BBL claims are small, but very low cost - no external legal feel
- Cartel cases as a whole are progressing nicely; MANO's cases are still stayed
- asked about the brutal share price - mostly waffled about COVID, repeated how the economic climate is good for the company. Said that he holds 15% and won't be selling any time soon. AIM is doing badly. But ultimately couldn't say why - which is fair enough really.
- asked if they're worried about monopoly issues; TLDR: no
- asked about scaling and hiring - may be required if BBLs expand, but the nature of those claims mean it can be more junior (read: cheaper) hires
Also, turns out it's pronounced "Man-o-lay", not "Man-o-leet".
It's on youtube, as of a few hours ago.
Another 10k today.
After that 10k print at the bid yesterday i'm almost certain there's a decent seller in the mkt, all the way down from 250. the lack of liquidity in this means that a poorly handled sell order will significantly hurt the share price. without an insto buyer to shore it up these will fall as far as the seller is willing to let them.
Business failures hit 14-year high, says the Times. New data confirms that insolvencies are on the rise. Mano has been beefing up for this and yet the shares have drifted back to their lows. That's generally not a good sign: when good news is ignored. Perhaps the problem is that the volume may increase but recoveries will be lower because of the poor economic backdrop (and falling property prices).
Another concern - though it may be entirely innocent - is that Peel Hunt have not updated their forecasts post the upbeat trading statement. Why not? They haven't even confirmed their old forecasts. My expectation is that numbers for 2023/24 are too high. Peel Hunt is forecasting £8m of EBIT. The trading statement implied they would make c£2m in 1H, which requires them to make £6m in 2H. Not impossible but would be their second highest half ever.
I think this is a good/interesting business but there's plenty of time (and quite possibly downside) before I want to invest.
...the Londpn presentation? SP actually drifted again since, so if you heard anything encouraging, please post.
1-.....in the wind - trying to profit in short term by buying any shares in this market.After their recent RNS MANO should be pulling away from the £3 mark but will have to sweat it out til mid Jan 24 at least
The market absorbed a lot of selling today - also a good sign
I wonder if JOM is still reading these posts. He/she was saying this was a poor investment and money would be safer earning 4% in bank savings account.
Up 14% this week.
Admittedly this is from a very low point, but the potential is there.
Forensic, Thank you for those kind words.
I just wish the markets would take note of me!
The RNS has that definite air of truth running through and I have confidence that the SP has hit bottom. In another 15 months or so I should be holding a 5-bagger,
With a market cap of just £66m it's very unlikely to get onto any institutional lists. On the other hand it only needs one institution to start buying...but there is no liquidity so they wouldn't be able to get a decent sized position without moving the share price significantly against themselves. It's going to be a long haul of individual investors gradually cottoning on to the recovery story. (The economic background is not helpful for the market as a whole either however irrelevant it is for MANO*; nor is the suggestion of the removal of AIM relief in IHT which now seems to be on Labour's agenda.)
I did learn recently that it isn't entirely irrelevant to MANO: the amount they can expect to recover from dodgy directors decreases if the economy/housing market tanks.
for well-rehe****d reasons this stock has been kicked from here to buggery over the past years. the very reasons it was kicked (the impact of government restrictions) should now be the reason for recovery (the lifting of those restrictions). it may take another set of results to convince the market that today's very positive statement is not a one-off, if that happens i can easily see the share price being north of £3 in 6 months. if what the company are saying is true there looks to be real, robust, momentum- anyway, fingers crossed, i bought a shed load two weeks ago so delighted to see today's rise, be even happier if it gets back on institutional buy lists.