Member Info for Franalex

Pearls, sadly I think you are wrong. I tried to go after the auditors in the case of Wrekin Construction and the infamous “gem of Tanzania”. They had allowed a ruby, that they had never seen be revalued to a huge figure in the accounts. The fraud is well documented but the auditors successfully hid behind the directors letter of representation. Much smaller company but a big enough issue to feature in the FT. A good read if you were not the CFO of one of the largest creditors.

Articles probably written by same fiction writer who has been producing the updates issued by the Board.

Castaway, certainly hope that any assets he has in the U.K. have been frozen by now but suspect not.

For those of us old enough to remember there are similarities with Polly Peck. Suspect they will run away from justice and fight extradition. In my view the E&Y audit partner should be questioned about what he did or didn’t know and what value he thought the audit added for the cost.

Absolutely agree. The current standard of audit is so bad that it is of zero use. They will have been paid a lot of money for absolutely nothing. It is not acceptable for them to say they had matters hidden from them, they should know where to look.

Announcements like this are seldom good news for shareholders, just another example of the financial mess that the directors were presiding over. The suspension is not going to end any time soon and anyone who believes that a bidder is likely to be forthcoming when the financial state of the business is unknown is living in dreamland.

Pearls, totally agree with you. Having completed over 25 transactions, there is no way I would go anywhere near this business until it’s position is clear. Any buyer of equity would assume all liabilities whether they were known or not and frankly any indemnities and warranties that may be available would be worthless and uninsurable. Someone may well be prepared to buy certain assets but whilst this may be attractive to debt holders it would be of little benefit to shareholders.

Think you are sweeping aside far too much negative news. If you have ever run a business you would know that you avoid not paying salaries at all costs and that if you are quoted, you can not afford to miss a reporting deadline. Be in no doubt, the debt holders are in control of this business as they were in so many recent failures that wiped out all shareholder value.

At some point this needs a thorough reviews by the FRC. This was a FTSE100 company that had convinced both IIs and PIs to invest. It eventually transpired that it was issuing misleading trading statements, did not know its shareholders, had extensive related party transactions, had conflicted directors, could not issue accounts on time, seems not to have known its cash position and eventually had to suspend. It is just about possible to understand this in an AIM listed business but has undermined confidence in the governance standards of even the largest businesses. I fear total shareholder wipeout which would probably be the quickest implosion of a large business for many years.

Sorry for spelling of name. Auto correct at it.

Gnashes, This is not new news, it has always been this way and the same with pension investments. You can not have the tax advantages on the upside but have protection on the downside. The posts on this board have clearly indicated individuals investing a lot of money with insufficient investment knowledge, which is fine if you take professional advice but they do not seem to have done this either.

Capdailbrit, probably know much more about China and its business and economy than you so stop insulting me with comments about the Western Media. Says everything about your intellect.

Mrorms. Have you actually looked at the wealth discrepancy in China? Billionaires having emerged from communism buying up real estate around the world whilst the poorest still work the land for a pittance. Far more extreme wealth distribution than the west.

Good2, merely shows what a tiny percentage of holders are on this Board. The vast amount of holders probably understood the equity risk, and invested what they could afford to lose as part of a sensibly diversified portfolio and had a rational rather than emotional attachment to the shares. Not remotely surprised at the figures.

Pianista, I am sure they have and are probably doing so at present. I am making the point that your assumption is wrong. We do not know what they are looking at and the action they may have to take may not give them any discretion. There are many examples of companies going into administration with millions in the bank, and at least two where they had over £100m in the bank but could not meet liabilities as they fell due. I was at the meeting of creditors of one of them where there was massive anger as ordinary creditors got very little.

Pianists, you can not make that assumption, in order for the directors not to have an obligation to call administrators, they have to have a cash forecast that they can meet liabilities as they fall due, not just immediate liabilities. They are not allowed to continue trading until they use up all current cash facilities. They can only avoid doing this if they have a reasonable prospect of finding long term funding or an advanced bid negotiation. No director is going to run the risk or trading whilst insolvent/wrongful trading and you can be sure that they are being advised on a daily basis by an insolvency practitioner.

FFC. Anglo are so large that for them it is a bolt-on acquisition that will make no material impact on their performance for years, and arguably not then. As I have said before, AAL is a high risk, high volatility share whose price is influenced by commodity prices and has fallen below £4 in the last 4 years. By all means have it as part of a portfolio but not as a punt at recovering losses on Sirius.

Quick feet. Yes it is different here. A business can and usually does continue to trade during an administration but under the control of the administrator who runs the business for the benefit of creditors. It is a new legal entity and the administrators has no obligation to pay any pre administration creditors. The proceeds are distributed in a pre-defined ranking order which normally leaves nothing for shareholders. If the liquidation can not run the business because of lack of cash to meet on-going liabilities then they will liquidate it which means much lower recovery than selling out of administration. Trading in shares ceases on open markets.

Yet only two weeks ago the Board were saying results were in line with expectations. Either they were lying or displaying a level of incompetence that is almost unthinkable. I am now attributing zero value to my holding and any upside will be a bonus.

Where are the shouty “massively oversold” crew now! They were very vocal just two weeks ago.