Member Info for A_E_Marsh

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

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]".""

This makes good reading.
More:
""Watchstone PLC’s claim against PwC is also seeking exemplary damages for breach of contract and/or breach of confidence and/or breach of fiduciary duty and/or unlawful means conspiracy.""

The important additional element here, (IMO) is.. " also seeking exemplary damages...."

(Exemplary, can mean "An exemplary punishment is severe and intended as a warning to others:" Don't you just love the use of the word "severe" in this context? I know I do!)

Other side of the story.. (Formulaic, but probably the best they can do for now.)

"A PwC spokesman said: “We deny these allegations and will vigorously defend this claim. It would be inappropriate to comment further on an ongoing legal matter.”

From:
https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/quindell-saga-rumbles-on-with-claim-against-pwc

More:
""British insurance claims processor Quindell announced a shake-up of its board after it confirmed it was selling its professional services arm to Slater & Gordon, the Australia-listed law firm, for about £700m.""

THEN........

""Slater & Gordon said it would pay an upfront consideration of £637m for the division and an earn-out based on the performance of the professional services division's legacy noise-induced hearing loss cases.""

From: https://www.euro2day.gr/ftcom_en/article-ft-en/1318480/slater-gordon-nears-quindell-takeover.html

"I've only read one line from an email that suggested S&G were considering paying £700m."

Evidence is evidence, it doesn't have to be repeated everywhere. You admit there is reference to a higher figure being paid for the take-over. So you are going to ignore it? Good luck with that.

I can imagine the strenuous defence even now, "Yes M'Lud, we did see that reference in the documentation before the court but we have decided to ignore it".

How many murdered bodies does it take to make a murder case?

"S&G then slashed its bid for Quindell's division from £700million to £637million, High Court papers claim. When confronted with the new offer, Quindell's bosses 'felt unable to refuse' because of its desperate position."
Here:
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-8605187/PwC-60m-lawsuit-leaking-secrets-quiet-coffee.html

If PwC really are prepared to go to court to defend their case I will be surprised. As for the payment, I expect at least what Watchstone have asked for.

Who knows, perhaps PwC have a client company in a position to, (with a cup of coffee) make a generous offer to take WTG over.
I'd like £8 -£10 per share, but who knows? Perhaps I'd settle for £6.

As you may see, I believe Watchstone is in a massively strong position. And I have (sadly) first hand experience of their patience in these sort of situations.

""It is possible yet that PWC may settle prior to a hearing..." Yes, it certainly is.
"" They may consider that an out of court settlement would be advantageous in order to: minimise reputational damage.."" Oh, quite, I couldn't agree more. Score in that event,,, PwC 1-0 WTG.
""..retain the anonymity of the Head of Restructuring; "" Yes exactly, that is to their advantage if they have behaved in a less than professional manner, Score: PwC 2-0 WTG.
""...prevent the disclosure of internal correspondence;"" Yes, that is certainly to the advantage of PwC, if they have behaved in a less than professional manner. Score: PwC 3-0 WTG.
""...avoid the distraction of legal proceedings .."" Yes. that is certainly to the advantage of PwC, if they have behaved in a less than professional manner. Score PwC 4-0 WTG
"....and; reduce the compensation to be paid to WTG"". WHY????

If they have behaved unprofessionally and if there is sufficient evidence that they have, (wasn't the word used "shafted"?) done so and effectively conned a company out of money it was rightfully due, why the Hell should PwC get off with THAT too?

No way. WTG should go along keeping it friendly, and then shaft them at the kill. And very good luck to WTG.

If PwC want to keep certain actions they have taken quiet, then there should be a (large) premium for a non-disclosure agreement.

WTG still lose 4-0. I'll console myself with the money. Innocent until proven guilty, after that, pay up, HARD!

""When the Chinese ambassador asked where the drone pictures of Uighur muslims at the rail head originated from he received no response""

Well you would have somebody would own up, wouldn't you?

"good luck and stay safe"

Thanks, you too.

""When more people went to work the supply of money went up and so did all prices.""

It was sold to women as "equality". But it was really just a trick to double the number of tax-payers. Everybody fell for it.

In fact the banks (and of course, Building Societies) forced the price of houses up by allowing more and more of a percentage of TWO wages for a mortgage.

If you owned property you doubled your wealth with no work effort. if you didn't own property you bought the house to make other people rich.

""Doubt there was much lock down in the 14th century..."

I'm not so sure. I seem to remember being told the airlines stopped flying. And if you didn't have an electric horse and cart you couldn't go anywhere. No hay.

"All racing and football and most other sport gone now so nothing to lose money on."

You could try buying shares.

""Markets collapsing, people fighting over toilet roll. LSE failing to show trades... the world is ending Gordon.""

Don't forget Brexit!

"" Under normal conditions the number bought should more or less match the number sold with the MM's holding some stock.""

AIM is not a matched market. You should be able to buy or sell the market size amount of stock (500,000 at the moment in the case of BOIL) at any time the stock is on the market. This service is part of the MM's service provision contract.

"Don't forget if it goes down 78% it needs to go up 156% to get to where you where"
Perhaps you didn't explain yourself well enough or your calculator needs replacement.

For example: Take a share at 100p. It goes down 78% to 22p.

Now multiply 22p by 156% and add it to the 22p. Have you got 100p? Change the calculator.

"Looking forward to some puns about this share in due course....BOOM!"

You should have been here 4 or 5 years ago....

Yes, I understand, just as they used to say in Victorian times (which is when I first bought this...) "venting my spleen".

I am optimistic that we WILL (eventually) get the due reward but going by the recent history of this company, I am not expecting anything too quickly, to be honest.....

Nice rise today.

Impatient? That's a joke, Shirley?

Anybody who has been "patient" here deserves an effing sainthood.

As for a transfer of wealth, yeah, in a pig's eye, the wealth is FIRMLY locked up.

That "Brexit" thing never went through, did it?

Another case of government regulators snoozing at the expense of their country. "Don't finish this too quick people, we are on full expenses."
Meanwhile, at the British SFO, "Don't finish this too quick people, we are on full expenses."