The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Thank you for the update. Are you referring to the transfer of the patent from ITS to the two dormant subsidiaries just before the ITS subsidiary was wound up or a subsequent patent transfer attempt (perhaps moving the dormant subsidiaries out of the PLC Group)? Also, do you have any adjournment dates?
I do recall a similar user name but definitely not Base147. Something with 233 in it rings a bell. Actually, only jon910 really stood out as being truly vile. It does not matter now. Thank you for the sentiment CP22. Base has been one of the good ones. Today will be interesting.
I suspect there are already other parties working together who collectively have both the will and the resources to have the long term actions of certain individuals investigated in great detail. In my opinion, this is likely to be more effective than a Shareholders Action Group. I doubt it will result in any financial benefit to shareholders but given the number of disaffected parties, some rather powerful, I suspect justice will be done in time. I also believe that more than three people will be investigated in this process, not just the immediately obvious ones. Just my personal opinion of course.
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60441/notices/1778956/all=worldlink;sort=newest Petitions to Wind Up (Companies) In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Companies Court No 9676 of 2012 In the Matter of WORLDLINK GROUP PLC (Company Number 06448562) and in the Matter of the the Insolvency Act 1986 A Petition to wind up the above-named Company (number 06448562) of Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey KT10 9AD was first presented to the Court on 20 December 2012. On 4 February 2013 an order for substitution was made in favour of Candey LLP, of 8 Stone Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2A 3TA (the Petitioner), claiming to be a Creditor of the Company. The Petition will be heard by the High Court of Justice sitting at The Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Building, 110 Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL, on Monday 18 March 2013, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard). Any person intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioner or its solicitors in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on Friday 15 March 2013. The Petitioner’s solicitors are: CANDEY LLP, 8 Stone Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, London WC2A 3TA. (Ref: ARD/CAN1/08.) Tel: 020 3328 7780, Email: adunn@candeyllp.com.
Very interesting Bingoblob. I wonder if that is a case of WGP appointing him because of this issue, despite this issue or without knowledge of it. For a bona fide PLC company, you would think that appointing him is another error in judgement. However, having read the Accounts, I am almost willing to believe they specifically want his type of 'creativity' to move forward. Maybe it is just an oversight.
It will not do much good Base. After my experiences with WGP, that is precisely what I set out to do in here but I was frequently attacked for living in the past, having suspicious motives and such like. It is very hard to get new shareholders to accept that nothing has changed when they so want their investment to be a success. I have no doubt a new set of shareholders would turn on you also. If you look back at my early posts, you can see that many comments took a turn for the offensive and personal. For my part, I tried my best yet a lot of posters in here still got sucked in so I have not been successful in that regard. What I will say is to have some faith that we have finally got the attention of the correct and proper organisations to investigate this further. It does take some time as no matter what you present to them as they have to verify and cross check for themselves which takes time and a lot of this must happen before they can approach the Company or people in question. Getting agreement to take something on as a formal investigation is an achievement in itself though. As you would expect, there is sometimes a clear line between Unethical but Legal activity and Illegal activity and many of the things that have happened are legal but others may not. I was rather taken aback to find that one area I was sure was illegal is actually not and another area is very hard to prove. These are when looked at in isolation of course and the bigger picture now demands attention. Certain pieces of the jigsaw need to be present and a material and disproportionate gain for certain people is important to the case.
No expert opinion here! Just opinion. It depends on your perspective. I do not personally believe this was ever a significant news item, more about PR and newsflow for the share price. Another promise without substance. Worldlink Brokers is an Appointed Rep (white label) arrangement of Saxobank's platform using the Chryson FSA licence. No proprietary WGP technology. I do not believe it stood much of a chance of making any significant money from this and it was not really relevant to the core business of the patent. On the other hand, WGP did use it to mitigate the negative impact of the formal expiry of the One Media Technology 'offer' (!) period and a lot of shareholders DID think it was significant especially given the PR behind it from WGP. So from that point of view, it is one of the main Aces that WGP showed to the Markets now being struck off in under 12 months. Look back to the posts in here at the time, there was a lot of excitement about it. At the end of this month, the current Financial Accounting period closes and Worldlink Brokers will have had a full 12 month period of revenue which should be reported by WGP by the end of June. I suspect the revenue will be next to nothing. We already know Jarvis revenues are negligible as are i-mobilemarkets (if it is even live given the IDC debts in the ITS subsidiary), Worldlink Brokers now on its way out, no update on Napdap or Dusanne, heavy defeat to City Index, no funding from Falcon or EFP (according to SD's updates), no sponsorship deals anymore in WGP name, negative comments on the patent outlook from WGP officers in winding up documents (public domain) etc. It is looking bleak.
Worldlink Brokers are the venture that WGP set-up with Chryson to much fanfare. This is the Worldlink Brokers website we all recognise. http://www.worldlink-brokers.com/ You will notice at the bottom, the following statement: "Worldlink Brokers Limited is an Appointed Representative of Chryson Limited, the regulated firm by the Financial Services Authority. Worldlink Brokers Limited is registered in England and Wales number 04088526" This is an entry into the London Gazette dated 5th February 2013 under the section "First Notices": "Worldlink Brokers Limited 04088526 05 February 2013" http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/823991/supplements/1571 Here is the definition of that section: "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1000(3) OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2006, THAT AT THE END OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE, THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES LISTED BELOW WILL, UNLESS CAUSE IS SHOWN TO THE CONTRARY, BE STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER AND THE COMPANIES WILL BE DISSOLVED." http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/823991/supplements/1535 Here are the RNS statements relating to Worldlink Brokers: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=WGP&ArticleCode=205tdy6v&ArticleHeadline=Worldlink_JV_with_Chryson_Wealth_Management http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=WGP&ArticleCode=rjpjoj08&ArticleHeadline=Product_Launch
I would find that very unlikely given the substantial debts of the Plc (let alone subsidiaries), liability and potential risk of action from 3rd Parties that may then appear. It would be far cheaper and lower risk to list themselves. It would have made sense if WGP were still party to any of the main sponsorship deals. Given BB appear to own the various rights themselves and with the patent ignored by the entire industry as well as defeated easily by City Index, it appears WGP are a glorified web developer just offering a configurable frame to BB's current platform. I understand that even the WGP mobile version is not a true "app", but an optimised mobile browser version.
So Falcon are not following their money? I thought they already invested during the IPO itself? I understand someone put up some money to settle with Mr Pearson to avoid his Wind-Up Petition. I got the impression it was Falcon that did this but that is an educated guess rather than anything concrete. Is it possible Equity Partners Fund are still in the picture?
Hi CP22. Nice to hear from you and best wishes also. I must admit, after a brief period of slight hope in May/June time, my interest is now a morbid one to see how it plays out. I wonder if any of our old favourites are still around like gem123 etc. Those were the days!
Another question if you don't mind, did Stuart Canwell join WGP as stated in "the" memo and if so, what is his role? As far as deserving holidays or not are concerned, it was a WGP authored document that stated relist on 28th December not anyone else.
With the City Index action so disastrous an outcome, why do people still have confidence in the patent? I wonder when WGP will get round to announcing what happened in the City Index case. It is better to hear it from them than for an alternative to post. Maybe they can dress it up as they did the Paros case. Of course, anyone else in the UK will undoubtedly get the same order by a Court so it would really seem to be over in the UK from a patent perspective. It would also be good to find out if the cost order in favour of City Index is against ITS and therefore avoidable (due to its liquidation) or whether it carries across to Plc or TM UK. The Markman will be interesting although Neil Riches own commentary during the recent ITS liquidation suggests they need $10 million just to contest one case in the US. Flikflak, do you know if WGP are still in dispute with Candey LLP and Squire Sanders over fees?