Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Tommy
My post on ADVFN over a year ago (copied below) gives some guidance for further research. The TRAXX case is now more than 3 years old (one of the oldest of MANO's aged date sheet) and the Court records show no activity since issue.
Keep at the back of your mind that the MANO business model removes all MANO and IP legal fees from court scrutiny as provided for in the Insolvency Act and that Eversheds told HMRC that IP and legal fees are deliberately overstated and overcharged by 25% ish..
Conditional Fee and ATE will almost always be the best option for creditors.. IMO the MANO model is structurally flawed and unsustainable until they agree to have their legal fees subject to assessment (100% of that gain should then go to the IP and not split with MANO.
In the meantime the gravy train for IPs and Solicitors rumbles on.
COPY
"The adage "once bitten twice shy" comes to mind. Best to understand the whole business as far as one can.
The big "lost cause" had final order of the Court filed on 8 July, including the "consequential matters" (leave to appeal costs etc), after the judgment was handed down on 24 June. IMHO Mano were obliged to report it to shareholders more than 2 months before they did, and certainly on the date the order was sealed (which gave them 2 weeks to research it) and there was never any possible appeal to the High Court as you seem to think, because the judgment was made by a Judge. There was simply no excuse for delay. If I had bought after 8 July I would be tempted to seek redress.
The Mano business model is simply one of making threats. Recoveries benefit mostly Mano, IPs and their solicitors which is Mano's USP. Creditors get the bits left over - if any.
All Mano's cases can also be seen by typing "manolete" into the search box on
There is a lot of activity.
Any interested shareholder can then follow up on the CE-file site to the publicly available documents (fees £11 or £22).
The Traxx (Aggregates) case (issued 1 September 2022) is an interesting one to follow given that the Administrator reports (per Companies House) that there is unlikely to be any payment to unsecured creditors, and its mostly about his (personal 25%) and his solicitors accrued fees. Mano paid £10k upfront and an undisclosed share of any recoveries in Summer 2020.
The Zipp International case is an interesting one. Settlement £800k. Mano took £369,470.05. Claim is publicly available which shows the amount claimed to enable comparison against the achieved settlement. It was a funded case. IP and solicitors were the principal beneficiaries of the remaining ex-Mano funds which is the Mano business model exemplified.
Will be interesting to see how the future plays out in this lawyers and accountants gravy train arena. Will/can the Mano shareholders benefit as much as they think? Interesting to wonder if the shareholders returns will exceed the payments to creditors.
I think I heard the comment that MANO is now staring to reach out for settlement agreements on the Truck cases.
Interesting comment on how MANO's business model is based on making "threats" that others can't or won't make.
I still think the numbers show that funding the IP is nearltyalways a better option for creditors.
Oldbutnowisa
Trying not to get the post removed again, I referenced penultimate para in 1st August RNS re PACCAR judgment and that I am told there is some activitiy that might be considered inconsistent with that statement.
Hope you get to see this before its removed by whomsever doesn't want transparency.
"There is more to the RNS than first view.
Miles and others are taking nil-condition options at 1p in lieu of some of their salary for y/e 30 June 23. The total is for 2.2% of the entire company.
That is desperation accounting - not only to save cash but probably for benefit of auditors. We have to wait for the accounts to be published to see the whole picture."
I am still concerned that Note 4 shows >25% of Gross Income for FY23 is from Funded cases but there is no disclosure of the split between realised and revalued. I suspect the majority is unrealised and therefpre may be at risk and I think we need a properly structured question for the AGM.
Add to that the restated as "long term" for the "large case" from FY21 and the disclosed and repeat banking covenenant concerns and I think we really do need some further clarification asap.
On the 50% point do remember that the losing parties costs are restricted to the 50% limit which leaves any funder at significant risk of loss - that is why most law firms won't do DBA's as they are at risk of not recovering their costs.
Isn't it the case that the 50% limit for civil litigation is for the total of all "legal fees" (including VAT) and "funding costs"? The IP gets to keep 50% of the Gross under all circumstances. LIT's RNS is worth a read as they seem to be 100% in the clear.
"Of the 23 (out of a total of 390 live cases) that are Funded cases, Manolete is working with specialist counsel to determine any amendments that may be required to the terms of Manolete's standard funding agreement."
BUT see Linklaters note from link below about past expenses rather than going forward. Perhaps we will have firmer numbers at the AGM
There must be a risk that the extended payment terms might be unenforceable if the Payee argues to re-open the case.
There must also be a risk that liquidators with personal liability will have to seek to claw back if their Statutory Bond insurer kicks off, and/or creditors start to ask for more - nb dissolved companies can always be reinstated and perhaps some entrepreneur will be thinking about seeking to buy up unpaid creditor claims and go for the IPs and their insurers and funders.
I think the decision is that such arrangements have always been unenforceable (subject to contract wordings) and if that is the case then I suspect the 6 year rule kicks in and Creditors can compel liquidators to act.
I do think the Directors should put out a clarification and "best impact estimate" statement