The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
It does make you wonder about other RNS release but as I have said many times, all shall be forgiven if WGP somehow pull this off. I have a friend who is a Solicitor specialising in IP (but obviously not associated with the case) who has sent me public domain documents on the Case and Patent but she obviously cannot give me anything on this Case until it is updated to Chancery Issues. We did discuss whether in light of the fund raising and listing suspension the strong likelihood that any Defendant would ask for something called a Security of Costs order under the circumstances especially as the Defendant's costs will undoubtedly run into the hundreds of thousands in a trial and the Plaintiff may be unable to pay. The Defendant really needs Audited Accounts to support their case for this. Unless the Plaintiff's case is very strong, this might be an issue here but the Judge may view the Defendant’s case as morally strong. I did ask my friend's opinion on the Case and as usual, her answer was "It depends”. She did comment that the structure and content of the Defence seems very robust and it is rare to see a Defendant go this far without an apparently strong case especially in light of the fact they have MacFarlanes representing them. It would not have been cheap to get to this point. She obviously cannot be expected to read the Prior Art but did say she has seen Plaintiffs win from this position (i.e. no apparent successes for a long time) so there is hope. On revocation, they do not have to prove precise Prior Art, their case is strong if they can show that the existence of other Patents would make it likely that a person skilled in the Art would have considered the Worldlink solution as obvious. The other patents noted by City Index appear to pre-date Worldlink's 2000 date by between 1 to 4 years (two in 1996, one in 1999). Also worth noting that the Worldlink Claim amount is listed as “Greater than £300K”. I wonder how much greater?
On one hand, it is good that after owning this share for four years, we are getting somewhere close to seeing whether the core IP of Worldlink is worthwhile. What bothers me at the moment is the statement in the RNS because it is so far off the mark that it makes you wonder about statements in other RNS releases. In my personal opinion, it would be reasonable to argue it misrepresents the facts.
Good morning all. I was able to read the City Index Defence and Counter Claim this week. Without commenting specifically on the content other that is seems very strong, what I can say is that they emphatically deny both the validity of the patent and that they infringe at all. I am absolutely dumb struck that having read it, that the Worldlinks RNS on 10th May 2012 contained this quote from Worldlink "The stated position from City Index is that their platforms do work in the way we say they do, and that they effectively rely on our patented methods." It is wholly and materially inaccurate. In fact, that could not be further from the truth. City Index admit is that they own a mobile trading platform and it intends to continue to operate it. City Index state "It is denied that the Defendant has thereby infringed the Patent as alleged or at all." This is not in the same part of their defence that states “the patent is, and at all material times has been, invalid for the reasons set out in the Grounds for Invalidity served herewith”. They expressly state they do not infringe at all.
The Case Management Conference is now taking place tomorrow at 10.30 in Court 2 of the Rolls Building. It is open to the public and is in front of a Judge not a Master. It will most likely be process based setting out dates etc which may lead to a trial date.
Where did you get the "after the event insurance" thing from? There is a type of insurance you can get that covers the cost of litigation is it transpires but it is not cheap and must be in place before the case is started. It is rather like Private Medical Insurance in that you cannot expect it to cover pre-existing conditions. Worldlink would have needed to take this out before the actual Claim was issued.
I thought it might be interesting to note that the Solicitors representing City Index appear to be MacFarlanes. Those of you who know the legal sector will know these are legitimate heavyweights. Not only is Worldlink vs. City Index a David vs Goliath situation; so to is Candey LLP vs MacFarlanes. City Index must be very serious to have them on board - no expense spared. On the flip side, if Worldlink know who they are up against and how serious City Index are but are going through with it, they must also be confident. We all know what happened to Goliath. Increasingly fascinating.
Do you have to have a subscription to get on the ADVFN forum? Interesting news about the relisting. If that is the case, they don't have time to take it private and issue new shares that way. How has the poster managed to get that kind of information? The good news therefore is the are definitely coming back. It is a "When" not an "If".
I hate to say it but the smart move would be to take this private, work on the issues and opportunities outside of the public glare then relist in 2014-2015 as a legimitate £50M market cap company with numbers and multiples to support it. Get rid of the costs and stress of a public lisiting, set the pre-money valuation to £5M and raise £2M to be spent exclusively on top line growth (no Director debts, advisor fees etc). WGP have a hard enough job to do on the business strategy without a LSE Listing to worry about. They look like they are making progress however. In my opinion, better news flow this month than in the entire three year period beforehand.
The Case Management Conference before a Judge is scheduled for Wednesday, 11 July 2012. In two day's time. It is not open to the public. It is to decide what happens next and also may look at whether the issues can be resolved without a trial. The Judge may also give an assessment of the strength or weaknesses of the evidence of the parties, an opinion on relevant statutes or common law that might apply and the Judge's suggestions for possible resolutions. If the Case Management Conference does not lead to a settlement or withdrawal, it will then get committed to trial. If we are going to get a settlement, this is when it will most likely happen.
Hello. I'll call Chancery tomorrow to see if they have any new dates for the hearing in front of the Master or even a trial date. I will post an update when I get through as I have not been able to get through today. It is a month since Worldlink submitted the response to the City Index Counter Claim so something should be happening.
I think we would expect another RNS on the Sunderland arrangement that the final contract has been signed to replace the current Heads of Terms signed on 29th June. I would imagine there is a timeframe for Worldlink to meet their conditions somewhere between now and 1st August. I thought it interesting to note that Sunderland have an online betting partnership with Paddy Power but also an "in stadium" deal with Ladbrokes. The Sunderland announcement states Worldlink/Bet Butler will offer the provision "both at the Stadium of Light and online". So I wonder if Worldlink/Bet Butler are replacing Ladbrokes too? I know Bet Butler already have Bet Butler brands booths in other clubs.
I would do some short term trading if I had the skills and fortitude for that (which I do not). At the moment, my interest has only been the patent but today's announcement gives renewed interest in life after the patent. It is hard for me and other long termers to get the original £120 million valuation on the private share issue in 2008 out of our heads which is to our disadvantage. Where I guess Jon and co are correct on history is this: If you forget valuations and start with Worldlink at £4M market cap right now and have always been £4M, they are a decidely more positive investment opportunity that if you consider the price they came from. If this was going for private equity funding with no debt and a settlement with City or B365, I don't see why a £7-£10M pre-money market cap for investment would be unreasonably. Less for a clean exit but either way, £4M doesn't sound bad IF they are a going concern (I mean a real going concern not what the Auditors specifically decide on). To put this in perspective, I invested in 2008 and was still in loss at the £2.50 listing price after the valuation changes and dilution. I imagine all of you would be rich if this got to £2.50 having got in at 8p or less!!
I covered the loans issue a while ago. Check back through my posts. The loans appeared in various chunks (technical term) over the past 3 audited years including a very suspicious £500K in 2009 out of nowhere. If you are looking for corresponding deposits from the Director's that showed they put in £2.7M, good luck. You won't find them on the Balance Sheet. Already discussed to death. My take was they are very suspect, others took a more laissez-faire view of it. The Director's certainly did not put actual cash into the company, there are no corresponding balance sheet assets. They will be "in kind" loans like bonuses forgone etc. Interest on the loans has been significant (£156K in cash paid to Riches, Burdett etc in 2010 accounts). It will all come out in the wash. A strong institutional investor will do Due Diligence on these and we can only speculate on the facts. If a decent name investor/VC comes in, that is good enough for me.