Member Info for Ash68

They will no doubt wash their hands of any responsibility in the same way the auditors will. So to summarise where we are now in the so called booming economy of the UK, you can't invest in property anymore because George Osbourne has decided to tax it through the roof. You can't invest in AIM listed shares anymore because most of the companies listed turn out to be run by crooks that run rings round both the auditors and FCA (both of which it would appear were completely asleep on the job at the expense of innocent shareholders with regards to Globo). There is no return to be made from bank deposits anymore because the interest rates are practically zero. Any other ideas anyone on where we should all now be investing our hard earned money (what's left of it at least after the crooks have taken a chunk out of it)? I would be interested to know what George Osbourne's view is now as to where we should all be investing our money. Not only has he allowed what would appear to be poor regulation to creep in to the AIM despite allowing AIM listed shares to be included in ISAs, he has also contradicted himself by taxing buy to let properties beyond affordability shortly after allowing pensioners to invest their pots in property. In the mean time, wealthy foreign oligarchs will continue to push up prices in London without any real financial penalty whilst the rest of us UK residents are left scratching our heads as to why we are no longer able to build wealth anymore.

Speaking from experience of a previous plc company I used to work for, it is scandalous how little some Non Execs do or are willing to do for their fee. It is simply an old boys club for semi retired Executive types to turn up to a boozy lunch once a month on the company's premises to listen but not object to whatever the Executive Directors choose to tell them before they completely give up work and play golf full time. This is not a generalisation but an observation that not all Non Execs are worth the money they are being paid to protect shareholders interests. If shareholders truly get nothing out of this then so be it. However, I hope if anything the role of the Non Exec is beefed up and made more transparent to shareholders on terms of the value they are adding to the Board.

Sounds familiar i.e. blagging about exponential growth. I really do hope GT are taken to the cleaners over this fiasco. They really have not shown any duty of care to shareholders. I really don't mind losing money on the stock market where the company has fallen out of fashion or suffered poor results from bad management. However, to lose money like this because it would appear, auditors have failed to detect large scale fraud is inexcusable. I hope the non execs all get sued over this as well for being completely ignorant and asleep at the wheel.

I have already written this investment off although it really is quite incredible how little, shareholders get formally told in these situations about why a decision has been made to delist shares if that is truly what will happen in this process. I guess more information will come out eventually although I think the order of events could perhaps be handled better imv to prove to all creditors including shareholders (regardless of the fact shareholders are last in line to be paid) all possible options have been considered to keep the business trading as a going concern.

With all due respect addicknt, nobody including you as yet really understands what has gone on here until the forensic audit is completed. All we formally know as shareholders is there was an emergency board meeting held on 24th October and both the CEO and CFO admitted to some form of financial misstatement. We as shareholders do not as yet know what the scale of this misstatement is nor whether the company actually does have the cash it claims. Why is everyone on here so accepting of what will happen when what we have been told formally so far is actually very little?

The RNS announcement about the administrators applying for the shares to be delisted was premature at this stage imv. This should be a last resort and yet I don't really understand why the RNS did not suggest this is a last resort. Grant Thornton must have audited something at least and so I think existing shareholders deserve to know this before they are forced to wave goodbye to their money.

I think this morning's resignation announcement was somewhat predictable. We already knew he was suspended and so I guess his resignation helps to show that the company is making an effort to wipe the slate clean. In my view, I think the decent thing for the administrators and regulators to do here is to at least wait until the results of the forensic audit tell us all exactly what the true financial position is here before any shareholders lose out by having their shares cancelled. It really would be a kick in the teeth to private investors like myself who lose all their money by the shares being cancelled only to then discover that the forensic audit result suggests the company can after all continue as a going concern and access cash to pay its debts. Why can't the courts force a broker to be temporarily appointed in the mean time to keep the shares listed?

If you are trying to convince me that I should pay more attention to the opinion of someone who only has access to publicly available information to form an opinion and a vested interest to make money out of a share price dropping in value over someone who has access to ALL records (both public and private) to form an opinion without any vested interest in which way the share price goes, then I think you are wasting you energy trying to convince me (even if I have potentially lost quite a bit of money here). At the end of the day, I make all investments with an expectation in my own mind that I could lose it all and it would appear on this occasion, I may have to do just that and write my investment off. It is not the end of the world but still very disappointing that the interests of private investors were not it would appear protected more here by the regulators, Non Execs and the auditors.

Who needs the integrity and expected accuracy of any formal opinion from professional auditors these days when it would appear in reality (according to you at least) TW and his friends are the ones that should be given the formal power to sign off the audit report to tell us all how it really is. They have at least bestowed that power upon themselves informally.

If the bigger institutional investors choose to sue the auditors in the event of the shares being cancelled, do we as private investors need to do anything to be included in the success of any class action taken or is the fact that we are included on the share register sufficient? I certainly don't have the funds to take any legal action myself although I am kind of hoping some form of class action could provide some benefit to all shareholders.

Does that mean the shares will be cancelled regardless of the outcome of the forensic audit? Anyone have experience of suing auditors? If this really does go tits up for shareholders, I cannot believe Grant Thornton will be able to simply walk away from this with no responsibility to shareholders, especially after the fees they charged Globo for carrying out the audit.

The bigger issue for me is around what the auditors audited exactly. There are lots of questions and yet no real answers being disclosed. It is an absolute joke the way this is being handled and if it carries on like this with the company being allowed to issue cryptic RNS announcements that do nothing but fuel the egos of bear bloggers, Hollywood Directors will be queuing up to turn this whole debacle into the next big blockbuster!

Out of courtesy to holders here, the company should stop sending out cryptic announcements and disclose the current cash position with immediate effect together with information around how the cash was last audited and an audit trail from what is was when last audited to where it is now. This is what we all want to know, not who has decided to resign now. For all we know from the RNS so far, Costis is probably currently trying to windsurf across to a remote Greek Island somewhere to hide out amongst the Olive plantations with money belts strapped to his chest. This whole episode really has cast a dark shadow over how the AIM is regulated. Too little too late in my view.

Has anyone seen or had any kind of response from Grant Thornton as yet over all this? Whilst we all wait patiently for any formal update here, an important point to note is that a clean audit report was signed off on 29th May 2015 per group accounts filed at Companies House. Is it correct to say that any irregular or fraudulent activity that took place (which from my understanding, has yet to be formally confirmed in terms of the precise details) before this date should have been brought to the attention of shareholders by the auditors before the accounts were signed off? There are lots of questions but no real answers as yet. I would like to hope that when the company is ready to, an EGM will be scheduled inviting shareholders to attend to get some straight answers here about what the situation actually is.

Jsimbo, I think we all know how reliable google is as a source of information. I personally would therefore not be blaming the auditors for failing to rely on information posted online. However, I would like to hope the auditors carried out their own checks directly with third parties involved rather than purely rely on the word of management and information available online. This I wait to find out.

Why would the company be making arrangements for administrators? This has not been formally announced and so why would anyone post such a suggestion? At the end of the day, regardless of what the CEO and CFO have actually done here, the company is still trading (it would appear at least) and so out of courtesy to those like myself that have money tied up here, it is important that people stick to the facts of what is so far known publicly rather than make more wild speculations or even gloat out of others misfortune (yes you know who you are). I am prepared to wait for as long as it takes for any forensic audit / investigation to tell us all exactly what has happened here. Only then can accurate conclusions be drawn over how much money we have all lost here and the likelihood of how much could be recovered by shareholders. This really is not a pleasant experience for all of us invested long here. To a certain extent, investing in the stock market is a blind experience for private investors since we do not always have the opportunity to meet those individuals that run the company and so have to rely on results formally published, the RNS and external audit opinions. Since the government allowed AIM listed shares to be included in a ISA, I think it is fair to say that as private investors, we should at least be able to rely on the integrity of the public information presented to us as private investors so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves. It would appear something has gone very badly wrong here and so I for one would like to understand why we are where we are.

It is standard practice for auditors to gain confirmation of the bank balances directly from the bank by writing to them. Cash is therefore very straight forward to audit and difficult to get wrong. Other than both the Ceo and cfo admitting some kind of irregularity, the full extent is not yet known and so anything else published online is nothing more than speculation. I doubt very much the shares will be released from suspension until the full facts have been disclosed by the company.........this would be too easy for shorters and unfair on people like myself who have invested long here.

With all due respect, I will wait for the formal forensic audit report to come out to understand what has really happened here rather than rely on the posts from opportunistic shorters making assumptions and acting as if someone has given them the power to become judge, jury and executioner for AIM listed companies. I doubt very much the shares will be trading again until a full formal report comes out telling us all exactly what has happened. Only then can correct conclusions be drawn, including why Costis sold all of his shares on 22nd.

As you said, IF found guilty. I know it seems like I am refusing to accept defeat here as a long term investor. However, I am struggling to accept that any audit firm these days would sign off accounts without being sure in their own mind what they are signing their name to, especially a firm as big as Grant Thornton. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few weeks although I am really not buying the fact that the auditors did not at least confirm the cash balances they were signing off on. Also, following the whole Enron scandal, auditors in general learnt lessons and beefed up their audits around off balance sheet accounting and related party transactions. Even privately owned companies these days have to present realistic evidence to satisfy auditors. Whilst this company is listed on AIM, it does effectively expose an auditor to a far wider base of shareholders than for a private company. Sorry, but I cannot believe Grant Thornton would risk their reputation and not carry out sufficient audit testing to satisfy themselves their audit opinion was not exposed on all three before signing off the accounts. I therefore think there is a lot more to this than what it appears to be on first impression.

Deary me, everyone is doing overtime on here this morning with regards to forming opinions. Personally, I really do hope the shares remain suspended until a full forensic audit is carried out to assess the situation as it would not be morally right for those shorting here to capitalise on this. All we really know is both the CEO and CFO have resigned. Whether either of them have actually done anything illegal has not yet been announced and until it is, I have hope that this company is not yet completely dead in the water. I still strongly believe shorters have poisoned this board and could even still be making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Yes, there may have been some dubious customers listed by Globo which QSM focused on in their report but only the results of the forensic audit will tell us formally what the full extent of the situation really is here. I personally will be relying on the results of the forensic audit to make an informed decision here rather than any speculative report or posts from shorters.