focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
I'm not sure quite how this works but surely if they are coming out of an official suspension, the share is simply made available to trade again at the pre-suspension close price and left to normal supply and demand forces to set the correct level on their own? I was not aware that a suspended company could change the share price themselves on lifting of the suspension.
Thank you SD. I note that the Total Funds Required breakdown does not include any provision for legal costs to pursue the patent in the UK or US; or to conclude the cases with City Index and Bet365. Do you think they have given up on the patent? The inclusion of both patents as a source of income in bullet points 3 and 4 suggests not but when you combine the lack of further legal cost provision with the stated objective to "reduce the need to raise further funding", it does not all add up. I wonder if they are going to focus their attention on Sports Betting now rather than patent licensing?
Thank you for that information SD. Is Stuart Canwell one of the investors? Have they actually invested as per the Memo or is that the proposal for an investment? If it is still in discussion, do you know if the detailed Due Diligence has been completed yet? Is the Bet Butler merger now signed and sealed pending funding? You have a longer track record with WGP than even me. Do you detect a genuine wind of change here? Moving forward with a new Management team is welcome news.
Interim Hearing but with a very important outcome. City Index pushed for a Security of Costs order on the basis there was strong evidence to suggest Worldlink could not pay its costs in the event City Index won the case. This is often quite hard to get if you are counter claiming as City Index are. Worldlink argued against it of course. Although Courts do not always look at the merits of the case (unless the Claimants argument is very strong), it is generally accepted that the weaker the probability of the Claimant prevailing, the higher the security order. The Interim Hearing reviewed the arguments and counter arguments from City Index and Worldlink (who represented themselves with no legal representation at all.....very odd). The Hearing rather emphatically decided to agree to the City Index Security of Costs order. Worldlink are now required to disposit a large sum of money in cash within three weeks of the hearing or the case is dismissed. The Security amount is large. Several hundred thousands of pounds, in cash, in just over 2 weeks.
Questionable given the timing of the transaction and its proximity to the voluntary liquidation but I suspect that there is insufficient commercial justification for creditors to chase it down and reverse the decision given the legal cost involved. Questions have been asked however. If the overrall company goes into a Winding Up process, I would think the Insolvency Service may look into this in detail especially with some prompting in the right areas (which many people seem to be wishing to do). It is not easy to release major QC opinions and substantial valuations to attract investors but within a few months claim they are worth just £1 yet simulanteously put significant effort to moving the alleged valueless patents out of the reach of creditors and keeping them for the rest of the company. It is simply not credible. Whether it is legal or not will come out in time.
Worldlink would try to claim the termination was not due to a repudiatory breach by them but due to a breach by SMG (i.e. we did not pay because he did not do x, y, z). That would be tough to do retrospectively given that the allegations made by SMG have been proven to be true by Worldlink's own documentation. A simple subpoena of a Club official stating they were not made aware that Worldlink's funding deals had not occurred (or were needed to fund the contract commitments), or that the Clubs were not aware Worldlink could not fund the deals at the time of the signatures (anticipating forthcoming funding), will kill their case stone dead.
It may well have been he did not have a choice if his name is indelibly associated with the deals as a 3rd Party organisation and therefore an act or ommission by Worldlink was harming that. If these contract terminations actually occurred in early August as claimed, then that would qualify and be damaging to SMG. In addition, if this is a repudiatory breach (e.g. Worldlink unwilling to meet their obligations in the signed Agreement), the subsequent termination will likely mean Worldlink cannot rely on any of the Contract clauses at all (whereas in a normal breach, other provisions in the contract can be held to have survived). Therefore, no confidentiality undertakings in the Contract would be enforeceable and SMG would be fully entitled to protect their own reputation based on factual statements.
I am pretty sure my husband has done that a few times (the painted side on the inside, usually discovered have 30 pin nails have been tapped in). What is it with men and reading instructions? I wonder if SD is hanging around in their reception again. Probably not at Royal Mint Court this time. In the last 2-3 months, a lot of people seem to have inside sources for news. I am feeling rather redundant these days.
Time will tell but those who got in very low may still have a chance of getting out with something eventually. However, the survival of Worldlink, and the ability for it to be relisted and shares sold, are two very separate issues. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive but the Company has managed to survive a crisis several times to continue operating but the shareholders still lost out (your own 2003 Worldlink liquidation is a good example). The only thing that really matters for private shareholders at the moment is whether the Company can relist and therefore enable shares to be sold.
Good point watchingbrief, it is quite possibly the primary objective. See pros and cons below. It does seem to fit with the agenda of the Directors. I wonder how a pre-pack will affect the open cases? http://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-business/corporate-recovery-and-insolvency/pre-pack-administrations/