Member Info for Frogjumper

Email, but she wasn't a director of the PLC, just a subsidiary, DX Network Services Ltd, and I suspect that was just to make up the numbers. So she wasn't really that important. People are pretty free and easy with their use of the title "Director" nowadays and it doesn't have the same weight as it used to have. Her position in the hierarchy could also have been described as "Head of HR" or VP.

Tep, Yes, her LinkedIn profile suggests she left at the end of 2021. Her profile doesn't show a new job since leaving DX but perhaps she's on garden leave or something. Whether her departure is linked to the disciplinary matter or not is pure speculation: people leave jobs for lots of reasons and she's previously taken a career break to study. She was never a main board director.

Hello Tep, I can't tell whether you're asking me that question but, to be clear, I've owned my shares for several years now and didn't buy any more when I heard the £1/share story. Weren't the shares £1 on issue?

Zibrahimovic, that's interesting; an employee mentioned a target of £1 to me as well although I didn't know they were being encouraged to buy.

Sister, I think the most likely outcome is a PE purchase. DX was PE owned until 2014 and acquired Nightfreight whilst PE owned in 2012. I think plenty of PE investors would be interested in the business and would provide the stability it needs.

Deep, I hope you don't hold your DX shares in a SIPP, as mine are. My SIPP provider does not make it easy to sell delisted shares held in SIPPs. It's not altogether their fault because they have to adhere to HMRC rules.

I also hope that your holding in DX is not substantial. The warnings about past performance not being indicative of future performance are more relevant than ever on a market like AIM. Direct investment in individual shares is risky even on the main markets. Which is why most people are best investing in funds which provide the protection of portfolios.

Sisteract, my take on the matter is that DX believes that if the "disciplinary matter" became public knowledge then their hands would be tied and they would be forced to take action that they are reluctant to take. They're reluctant to take the action either because they believe it's not justified and would damage the business or because it's justified and would damage the business. Either way, it has the potential to damage the business. This is why they have been prepared to take a big gamble, losing the auditor and potentially losing the listing and their integrity. Despite what people say about GT, having a public spat with your auditor never looks good and indicates pig-headedness or arrogance.

Sisteract, I think you're right that the HR Director would have been involved in the disciplinary issue. Perhaps she resigned because she felt that a serious issue was being covered up and not dealt with properly?

Does anyone know to what extent DX are separating their express and freight operations into different facilities? I'm wondering if DX is contemplating selling the express arm?

D-Geeman - I'm positive about DX's prospects as long as Lloyd Dunn is the CEO. If he goes then I'm selling my shares (if they're ever unsuspended) although I imagine it'll be at a considerable loss.

Pianista, what's bizarre about it? Why don't you just accept the most plausible explanation, in the absence of concrete information, which is that something serious happened at DX that GT thought it needed to investigate further but DX tried to cover up by withholding crucial information. This left GT in a difficult position from which they extracted themselves by resigning. And it could well be the case that replacement auditors are not willing to take on the audit because DX still isn't providing enough information for them to weigh up the risk.

I can understand that DX would have reservations about sharing information with auditors that might be used as evidence in a legal case but auditors will have experience of dealing with such sensitive matters in order to maintain confidentiality.

DX is trying to cover up something and, given the dramatic steps GT has taken, GT must consider it's very important.

Even with some knowledge of GT's history, I trust them much more than DX or any of DX's shareholders, including Gatemore.

When I saw Gatemore's comments about investor communications I inferred that Gatemore was complaining it wasn't receiving information directly, not that it had an issue with wider communication to the likes of us. Now that Gatemore is on the board, they have all the information they want, putting them in a much more advantageous position than us.

We might be getting ahead of ourselves with speculation and it doesn't really achieve anything for us other than allow us a bit of fun. It's always possible that DX finds another auditor and things get back to normal. Although it wouldn't surprise me at all were we to see a PE backed MBO. DX did well when it was previously private and going public was a mistake. High time for it to go private again.

Deep333, my feeling is that DX is now a sound business because of the person at the top, Lloyd Dunn, and that a change at the top would be a disaster.

My fear is that the BOD is claiming something is a governance issue when it's not really. Imagine a situation where a senior manager instructs someone to do something fraudulent. Subsequently, someone (perhaps the auditors) discovers this and brings it to the attention of management. The management then reverses the original action so that it has no effect on the financials. What's the status of the original instruction? Is it "just" corporate governance?

Yes, DX must be hiding something truly bad for it to have got to this.

There's nothing to say, is there, other than DX's managers are crap?

Hello Portswigger, a factor between the difference between freight and express vacancies might be that there's a shortage of freight drivers nationally.

Well, Sisteract, I'm sure GT and other auditors encounter legal privilege in lots of audits they do and they have ways of working around it that allow them to sign the accounts and let them be published. All decent sized businesses are likely to have legal cases running which involve legal privilege. It's a separate issue but in this case GT has also explicitly said that DX provided "inaccurate information which did not in (GT's) view give a full picture of
the scale and seriousness of the facts". I can understand that DX might not be able to share privileged information but why would DX provide inaccurate information about such an important issue?

I don't think the privilege issue is the sticking point. My translation of the key points of the letter into even plainer English is:

1. GT definitely believes there's a strong likelihood someone connected to DX has breached laws or regulations;
2. GT believes DX's investigation and/or subsequent actions were inadequate (I suspect the latter);
3. DX provided "inaccurate information" to GT and prevented access to further information.

These are serious accusations and GT didn't make any real effort to pull their punches. I think DX's statements are logically lacking. If, as DX seems to be claiming, there's no real problem, then there shouldn't be any difficulty providing some information about it. I'm sure that lawyers and accountants could come up with suitable forms of words that would allay fears. DX's unwillingness or inability to provide more transparency suggests to me that, contrary to their reassurances, the problem really is a substantial one.

Does Pianista know what sub judice means? There's no evidence that there's an ongoing or approaching trial. Or have I missed something?