Re:email18 May 2018 19:46
I've just read your first post, which I had missed as I was mutli-tasking. (That excuse always used when you cick-up two things at the same time)
Firstly, I still take the view that it is not for WTG to decide what should or shouldn't be advanced, and I have enough experience of such matters to believe the judge will too. Indeed I think it unprofessional to include that statement in your defence (of a case that is not proceeding!)
So no, according to WTG they haven't proceeded, OK, but I know nothing of the claims of deceit either, in fact I think I have seen nothing of S & G's claim despite looking for it in the past.
I agree that it would seem to be a mistake on S & G's behalf to be seen dithering, one wonders why.
Personally I had believed, and possibly still do, they are more risk than the SFO investigation. (Of course I may be wrong)
But each passing day must make WTG more confident.
I'll be honest, I'm unsure about the claim, or at least the wording from WTG regarding this matter. I know it would not be the first mistake they have made with RNS's!
The management are uncommunicative at best and only have themselves to blame for mistrust in the information they (very occasionally!) choose to impart provide.
You may have seen at least one post here stating a person was a little surprised there had been no RNS over an event that took place recently, sell-off or something. I have complained (frequently about a lack of communication.
No condemnation of yourself, just general scepticism with our illustrious BoD, but I will wait until irrefutable information is provided.
I fully accept your comments are made with no error as the WTG side would see it and apologies for any misunderstanding caused.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
