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.
This is my first post but definitely not my last as we all attempt to bring these crooks and fraudsters to justice. So, I've over 150,000 shares in Xcite and have often read these posts over the years but chose to stay in the background as others grunted and groaned their way to where we unfortunately find ourselves now. As the situation with Xcite deteriorated over the last six months I've made contact and had some success with journals, the BBC and even Parliament departments in trying to get them to publish the truth about the BoD shenanigans and the awful way we the PI's have been treated throughout this debacle. In short, I have found that the only way we can get justice is to collectively stand together and not just post frivolous threats on this and other websites. This starts with individually doing something, if you really want justice! and this starts here ... - Use the format of the letter posted here on Wednesday at 19.54 hrs, add some more words of your own and write to your MP. If you don't know who that is then look them up here ... http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ After you've done that call their constituency offices and make an appointment to see them. The more PI's that do this then the more likely one(or two) of them might just take this on. - Contact the Serious Fraud Office and fill in their online form. Get a reference after submitting it and then all them up a week later to find out what they're doing about it. (I've done this already and will be calling them tomorrow). The form is here ... https://www.sfo.gov.uk/contact-us/reporting-serious-fraud-bribery-corruption/ - Contact the FCA who are ultimately responsible for AIM, despite what some posts here have said and report the goings on. Dropping emails to the AIM regulator at aimregulation@lseg.com are useless because they don't have a mandate to act and will just be deaf to your pleas. FCA abuse ontact form is here ... https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/market-abuse As I've mentioned above, if we all do this then the collective will take shape and a class action will form where legal support will be easier to solicit. Now, let's get to work!
Good post but imo for shareholders that have been seriously burned by the bs that this bod and management of xel/r, and still have any money left to contribute to a group action best imo appoint legal council familiar with corporate law re fiduciary duties and bvi law, find some way to stymie or stall the asset sale or at least get it made open market, and/or an egm called to vote out this bod.
This bod have it seems used corporate paid lawyers to concoct an action plan to secure themselves against their fiduciary duties and the best interests of the company and it's shareholders. Jmo. Everything leading up to this should be divulged.
Superb post stewartuk13 at 12.15 today. Nothing sinister in the removal of your links - you have to have posted a few times before links are allowed. I repeat those you provided:- Find your Member of Parliament http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ Reporting issue to the Serious Crime Office https://www.sfo.gov.uk/contact-us/reporting-serious-fraud-bribery-corruption/ Self-regulation Because AIM is an unregulated market segment, it escapes most of the mandatory provisions contained in European Union directives – as implemented in the UK – and other rules applicable to companies listed in the LSE. AIM believes self-regulation is pivotal to AIM’s low regulatory burden: companies seeking an AIM listing are not subject to significant admission requirements; after admission is granted, firms must comply with ongoing obligations which are comparatively lower to the ones that govern the operation of larger exchanges; and certain corporate governance provisions are not mandatory for AIM companies. Therefore, AIM-listed companies are often subject to manipulation by institutional investors. AIM-listed companies usually are only required to adhere to the corporate governance requirements of their home jurisdiction, which, as a practical matter, vary widely.[5] However, the regulatory requirements are more onerous than for private companies and AIM listed plcs are required to prepare audited annual accounts under IFRS.[6] The Financial Conduct Authority seemed to direct me to a page focussed on insurance complaints and reporting issues to the organisation involved before an Ombudsman could be involved. Have the Financial Conduct Authority accepted a complaint and given a reference number to a grievance from a poster on this forum? If so it might be helpful if the contact address could be posted and perhaps the complaint number?
23.01 ii post by JF123 chase the cfo/ceo and most importantly the auditors signing off on the 2015 accounts, as the xel liquidation option clearly in the optional game plan at that stage why was it not disclosed as a codicil by the execs to either shareholders or auditors and if disclosed to auditors not mentioned by them when they qualified and accepted the accounts then and bod assurances given re going concern. Yes going concern perhaps but by liquidation, surely material event
The other option of course oga where were they at xer/xel board meetings, funding/guarantee support, completely toothless imo other than disruptive re fdp.
Whatever but unless shareholders with substantial stake in xel prepared urgently to coordinate around and submit a case, any case under a point of law, civil or criminal, either in the U.K. or bvi against the company, bod, auditors, bondholders, oga, whoever, this imo is heading for the rocks.
Good point highlandsbull in your post at 9.16. What is "substantial" to smaller investors, even if united in a joint action, is possibly insignificant to major investors. Smaller investors need the leadership of a major investor or a"no win no fee" lawyer confident that they have a case against those listed in your post.. Alternatively an expert willing to lodge the relevant papers and complaint.
Exactly, a co-ordinated approach, away from the useless nonentities that have 'managed' the company to this level. Who would give them any credibility in negotiations, and clearly too much conflict of interest there with the bulk of stockholders. Needs imo to be aimed at the court and liquidator in bvi, and locally lawcourts re fiduciary duties, years of bs, and oga to protect the asset for existing shareholders while the legal process is ongoing, even to the extent of govt assistance with what is a national asset re guarantee or funding. But not at this point on lease termination, someone clearly is prepared to put more money in to this. Jmo..
Even any sort of holding argument that can initiate delay is not going to play into the plans of the bondholders in the countdown now to lease expiry. For all parties this needs to ne resolved within the timeline now to end June '17. At this rate also Chadwick one would have to assume will be gone. What a crock this bod has initiated.