George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
"Quindell said it would expect the company's shares to devalue by 90 pence before its 1 for 10 consolidation goes ahead."
You're clearly linking a lack of cash generation SGH with a desire by "lawyers" to avoid responsibility, re escrow and hearing loss rebates I fear this will not go down well here ...
court approval for the 90 p is far from certain, but the board think they have been prudent as clarified in the circular ...... 90 p plus further 10 p when and if the escrow account is released from restraint ....then 9 p a share rebate from slater and Gordon total potential cash return 109p. 11 p cash upside for new investors on today's share price and a share in a loss making business If it transpires courts approval is not forthcoming because of potential fines compensation claims and any other claims and if slater and Gordon claw some or all the escrow money back there is also a potential for a 98p total loss at the present share price of 98p PPI started as a small issue for banks then snowballed into billions Total fines for banks misbehaving have been in the billions, if the worse happens QPP bank balance may soon dwindle away, this is the fear and the risk don't let anyone hoodwink you into thinking this is a risk-free investment. 11p upside and share in loss-making business 98 p potential loss of total equity ........ This is the fear and the risk do not let anyone hoodwink you into thinking this is a risk-free investment. with any share, generally speaking, you could lose the total invested unless you have some form of insurance........ dyor .....IMHO
I know you meant to add, capital reduction is , subject to shareholder and court approval, BONDSTREET.
CRAIGEVANS With regard to the current SFO investigation into QPP it appears the latest ruling by the appeal court on OLYMPUS that a company can not be prosecuted for misleading auditors does not preclude a different charge being brought against the company should evidence be found to support such a charge ..... I have copied and pasted from a story in the FT which supports this opinion .... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The SFO charged Olympus and its UK subsidiary, Gyrus Group, in 2013 under section 501 of the Companies Act 2006 — making a statement to an auditor that was misleading. The appeal decision could make pinning corporate liability using the SAME law difficult for similar cases in the future. However, people close to the Olympus case say that the SFO could have used DIFFERENT charges.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8c57044e-87c9-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html#axzz3rvZn3Lo2
CRAIGEVANS YOU MAY WISH TO READ THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY QPP . TO SAVE TOU TIME I HAVE COPIED VERBATIM FROM THAT CIRCULAR, BELOW IS THAT TEXT FROM CIRCULAR STATING DIRECTORS UNCLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF SFO INTENTION Since the specific focus of the SFO Investigation is currently unclear to the Directors, it is not possible to determine whether the SFO will, in due course, seek to pursue a prosecution of the Company and/or any individuals, or whether the SFO will seek a resolution of its investigation which does not involve a prosecution.
While some on here may think this a risk free share and post those views as unchallengeable, the road ahead is far from risk free as the below circular addresses . Any potential investors should caveat all views negative and positive with a dose of the facts below ..... Since the specific focus of the SFO Investigation is currently UNCLEAR to the Directors, it is not possible to determine whether the SFO will, in due course, seek to pursue a prosecution of the Company and/or any individuals, or whether the SFO will seek a resolution of its investigation which does not involve a prosecution. Further, it is not possible to determine whether any such prosecution (if pursued) would be successful, or what the quantum of any fine or confiscation imposed as a result of a successful prosecution might be. However, the Company expects that it would have sufficient assets to pay any fine that it considers to be reasonable (and satisfy any ancillary orders) imposed on the Company by a court in the event of a successful prosecution by the SFO. Shareholders should note that if, for any reason, the Court declines to approve the Reduction of Capital, then the Return of Capital will not take place.
potential investors may like to take note of what the directors think in that the road ahead is far from clear of obstacles to recovery ....... below has been taken from QPP circular .re capital return and related matters ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Since the specific focus of the SFO Investigation is currently UNCLEAR to the Directors, it is not possible to determine whether the SFO will, in due course, seek to pursue a prosecution of the Company and/or any individuals, or whether the SFO will seek a resolution of its investigation which does not involve a prosecution. Further, it is not possible to determine whether any such prosecution (if pursued) would be successful, or what the quantum of any fine or confiscation imposed as a result of a successful prosecution might be. However, the Company expects that it would have sufficient assets to pay any fine that it considers to be reasonable (and satisfy any ancillary orders) imposed on the Company by a court in the event of a successful prosecution by the SFO. Shareholders should note that if, for any reason, the Court declines to approve the Reduction of Capital, then the Return of Capital will not take place.
Since the specific focus of the SFO Investigation is currently UNCLEAR to the Directors, it is not possible to determine whether the SFO will, in due course, seek to pursue a prosecution of the Company and/or any individuals, or whether the SFO will seek a resolution of its investigation which does not involve a prosecution. Further, it is not possible to determine whether any such prosecution (if pursued) would be successful, or what the quantum of any fine or confiscation imposed as a result of a successful prosecution might be. However, the Company expects that it would have sufficient assets to pay any fine that it considers to be reasonable (and satisfy any ancillary orders) imposed on the Company by a court in the event of a successful prosecution by the SFO. Shareholders should note that if, for any reason, the Court declines to approve the Reduction of Capital, then the Return of Capital will not take place.
you could await the outcome of the SFO enquiry or if like the Olympus litigation QPP decide to settle YLF claims, you could join that action or start your own litigation all my opinion I am not a lawyer ..........dyor
what a well balanced ,reasoned and informative board TONIGHT ...
misleading of auditors was the offence in question, and which the ruling was given on, there is a whole raft of other offences, if found that can be brought under criminal law, notwithstanding such ylf claims are not dependent on a criminal conviction they are being made under the civil law .... IMHO BONDSTREET
criminal law and civil are two separate entities one does not have to of committed a criminal offence to be found guilty of a civil offence .in a civil court . The ruling in question relates to criminal law “English law does not criminalise the misleading of auditors by the company under audit”, according to the SFO.
YLF are bringing a civil case not criminal ..... in addition as I understand it , that ruling relates to that particular offence IMHO
SFO began investigation on 5 august 2015 into Quindell both BUSINESS and accounting practices AND IS ONGOING in the absence of any new announcements to the contrary For the capital distribution to take place a COURT and shareholders must first APPROVE . AS OF YET THEY HAVE NOT . 29 September 2015 Letter of intended claim has WAS served on Quindell relating to civil litigation . and that matter is ongoing absence of any new announcements to the contrary IMHO BONDSTREET
QPP looks to be heading to 95 p IMHO
SMOKE AND MIRRORS New name same games Consolidation won't stop the real value falling after distribution that if we can convince the courts to approve .
I'm an optimist who carries a raincoat . I had hoped for the £1.00 to be returned in one payment, why have they now decided to issue in two tranches? my worry is I may will need that raincoat after all ......
if we don't heed the lessons from the past .it has habit of repeating into one's future. and we come down to reality with a crash .