Member Info for GrumpyScouser

They paid us the money owed. There may be absolutely sound reasons behind this court appearance of course: I have absolutely no idea what lurks beneath it and frankly am only interested because of the past.

Filed accounts also make interesting reading (especially the notes)...... the word 'transparency' springs immediately to mind https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08052150/filing-history

I have no other details however I imagine information is available. Interesting what you find with a few clicks: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE � INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST The Rolls Buildings Court 6 Before MISS E JONES QC sitting as a Judge of the Chancery Division Tuesday 10 October 2017 At 10:30 AM (All Day) Part Heard Trial CR-2016-002438 Quob Park Solutions Limited

I have to agree with that last post @Addinckt. The previous regime were, to be charitable, less than transparent: the fact that RT was in court only this month regarding one of his current businesses continues to make me question his methods. In support of your final comment: I can't imagine anyone in their right mind investing here, only people who have done sufficient homework on the risks associated with the share. Here are some examples of people who have now satisfied themselves with the balance of risk: http://www.watchstonegroup.com/investors/shareholder-information/ These are not old, stagnant investments which they are forced to hold. Potential investors can easily find a list of increased holdings at this link: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=WTG&share=watchstone_grp .

Note to self: must order some more Absinthe. I was trying not to drink before breakfast.

@Dar: I was referring to lawyers in the context of II's doing DD....they would no doubt have been asked for professional opinions with reasoning. In a court environment I disagree with your statement that 'they are more interested in their fees than the rights or wrongs': they are there to argue the case on their client's behalf and within the guidelines of the law. There will always be professionals who are only interested in their fees and I hope they are the exception. Like dentists who carry out work regardless of the patient's needs.

A lawyer can probably predict the outcome with reasonable accuracy. Armed with the claim and defence I imagine the legal teams at the II's can give accurate predictions of the likely outcome. Thus they appear not to have been too worried to spend literally millions during the sp decline to hoover up shares. Most of that in the 130-150p range I think. In the end an even more experienced middle aged man in a wig will make the final decision....unless one side blinks first.

In other words: theyve formed professional opinions based on facts and legal advice. Not just one spiv taking a punt.

@sparkles: meant to add 'I also have a *hunch* about 3'

4. Possibility of SFO investigation closing 5. Ongoing growth and profit in remaining bsuinesses 6. Ongoing reduction in central costs in Q3 & Q4 7. Realisation that the last 9 months of persistent II buys were possibly done for one or more researched reasons

http://www.watchstonegroup.com/investors/shareholder-information/

Seems to have changed his mind

No court date expected until Q3 2018 based on a question to the company. Leaves plenty of time for SGH to decide withdraw gracelessly and release the escrow plus costs

Yes you're probably right. Time will tell.

Good grief....how SGH can have the audacity to try this on is beyond me. The work that this BoD have done in preparing this response is outstanding. Over to you mi'lud...... By the way: probably goes quite a way to explaining why the SFO have not pressed ANY charges.

Could be interesting.

Seems even more likely now. ;-)

Now public: 137pages of detailed rebuttal. Read it....embarrassing for SGH shareholders. Especially the one clause which may put their entire claim at risk.......I wonder ;-)

The question wasnt rhetorical: where did he disappear to after SGH severed him? He's part of their claim for fraudelently misrepresenting information.

The claum, and addenda give much more detail on the general direction of the accusation: deliberate deception in emails from Fielding. Where did he disappear to after SGH severed him?