Member Info for n0comment

@Pduk. Well said. The guys got no skin in the game. Some people get off on others misery. And some are stooges.

Yep, shareholders have been blatantly lied to, by Parsons who ran off with millions.

And the bulletin board is full of bottom feeding yes men, low lifes, who call the victims of this fraudulent behaviour 'doomsayers' and other names. Just real slime bags.

At last youre not one of those F*ckers. Then it really would be time to pull the trigger.

@ Trellis. Keep up the good work, there are decent many shareholders behind you.

There are a lot of solicitors firms and barristers who specialise in financial mis-selling, which is unquestionably, unequivocally what has happened to investors here, at SOU, [under that lying scumbag little goblin]

I think it will be worth the SAG talking to certain insurers [companies like DAS] and solicitors who will underwrite cases against companies, or company directors guilty of misfeasance, if the solicitors can convince the insurers that there is above a fifty percent chance of winning. [This is the no win no fee concept, often called after the event insurance] and Just one more avenue to explore over the coming months and years....

With enough evidence gathered, we can talk to solicitors and insurers who will go after this person.

I think a decent judge, when dealing with a claim of malfeasance, against a company director who has operated as Parsons has done, would see that Parsons, by paying himself a multi million pound salary, and offering such negligible results, taking into consideration the blatant mis-selling and lies he has propogated for personal profit, needs to recitified by taking the majority of his wages, and ill gotten gains, back from him, and awarding it back to the company.

Oh we'll get the F0cker. Might take a few years. Dont know what method justice will be delivered in. But his time will come...

This is ridiculous.

Well, were never gonna get anywhere on here.

It looks like between sixty to a hundred posts were removed from last night.
You have certain insidious people on here reporting every post that they personally do not agree with, or like.
And the moderators are siding with them.
The entire FCA thread has gone.
Apparently it's not the first time.
Mods might send you a message telling you the posts were 'disruptive' but if you ask for a definition of 'disruptive' you wont get one.
The entire point of the posts was simply asking shareholders to repeat what they were told at various shareholder meetings, by members of the BOD.
Comments which they believed to be misrepresentative or outright, blatant lies.
As soon as people began posting those comments, the censors swooped in.
You cant have these conversations on this BB.
And at any moment you could be barred for asking those questions.
[And facebook sucks. :) ]
Anyone know how to set up a free /group/forum/site thingy? [IT not strong suit.]

Dont worry kasjanton, i think that was aimed at me. ;0)

Maldini.....The higher the share price, the worse the chances are of any legal action being taken being successful.....
Theres nothing wrong with gathering information, and quietly asking for a professional opinion.
Thats all thats happening.

The FCA, used to be called the FSA. Which, was set up as part of a tripartite system. [Under New Labour]
What did that actually mean?
At the time the chairman of the FSA, was also the Chairman of HBOS, who owned over 33% of the UK's mortgage book.
So as the chair of the FSA, this fellow was tasked to watch the banks, and make sure that they didnt carry out any nefarious practices. In other words the chair at the FSA, was therefore tasked to watch himself, to make sure, that he in his other role, didnt perform any nefarious practices.
[Who will watch the watchmen!?]
What did he do?
He became known as the 'king of the liar loans' which basically meant that he was the person, in charge of HBOS, who let anyone who could scrawl their own sign, borrow as much money as possible, in the era of cheap money, to buy as many houses as possible. We saw the results. Houses went from 3x salary up to 12x salary. They tripled in under ten years.
In other words he created a credit bubble in an asset. Houses.
[After the banking crash, the Bank of England, was able to point at the FSA and blame them, for not watching inflation. How convenient.]
HBOS then went bust. Because they had lent too much money to people who were bad risks.
[The banks packaged up these MBS, mortgate backed securities, which they rated as AAA, but were not AAA. They were bad risks, And traded them to each other, until they were recognised as junk bonds and worthless]
This fellow, the chair of the FSA, and the Chair of HBOS, was knighted by Brown for services to banking.
Then HBOS went bust, and he was stripped of his knighthood, and had to retire on a measly ten million a year pension pot. The shareholder of HBOs, lost everything.
Thats the history of the FSA, before they changed their name to the FCA.
They are nothing to do with justice. They are not on your side.
You will all get an email basically saying 'thats a legal issue' or, 'we cant help you with that'
I wish it were different.

@ Eric. There are plenty of those willing to bend over and take it. And plenty of internet tough guys.
Big men, on a board, that wouldnt say boo to you if they were stood in front of you.....worlds full of em....

No he's not.

I think at this point, we can safely assume that questioning the efficacy of an individual will make absolutely no difference.
NO difference AT ALL....to this SP...I honestly believe thats a completely unfounded fear.....
Sending Trellis proof of shares is necessary. Yep. Agreed.

I really dont get the hostility to be honest..

What exactly do you think that you lose?

It's not a backtrack at all. Obviously.

I am not stating that anyone, either presently employed by SOU, or previously employed by SOU is responsible for any crime or misdemeanour or wrongdoing. That is not for me to decide. It's for a court to decide.

I completely disagree with you.

The shareholders on here, who have been LTH and invested heavily, deserve a lot better.
And are attempted to be 'bullied' into 'shutting up'......

I've used a number of lawyers over the years for contractual matters, in bus2bus enviroments.
However I am not an expert, and neither are you.

The shareholders need to pursue legal advice. Regardless of what happens to the share for now on. I would go so far as to say, that doing so, will be good for the company.

What is misfeasance?
In exchange for the protection that limited liability offers company directors, you have a duty of care to your company, its creditors, and to the general public. A breach of fiduciary duty in this respect can result in a claim for misfeasance being made against you. If you are a company director and are in breach of your fudiciary duty, and you have received benefits, whatever they may be, you will be compelled by the courts to hand it back. So, rather than remedying the losses incurred by other parties, such as shareholders, the law acts to remove ill gotten gains.
Which go back to the company.
This apparently does not depend on proof of fault, because the company director, [the fiduciary] will still be liable to the company for his breach of duty, regardless of the fact that he acted in good faith.......

I personally feel that taking a staggering five million pounds plus from the company, as wages, is a convenient way in which to perform a type of legal embezzlement, if by embezzling we mean generally taking vast sums out which youre not entitled to.

I think that most shareholders would agree that some of the following has occured;

MISFEASANCE;
Under the Companies Act, 2006, directors can be held PERSONALLY LIABLE for losses caused where ’misfeasance’ has occurred.
If the company has to be liquidated, the office-holder will investigate directors’ actions leading up to the time of insolvency.
Although actions classed as ‘misfeasance’ are not illegal, you could be held PERSONALLY LIABLE for any losses incurred by the company or its creditors as a result, and SUFFER THE SEVERE PENALTIES which can be applied by the courts.
So what exactly constitutes misfeasance, and what are the ramifications for you as a limited company director?
What is misfeasance?
In exchange for the protection that limited liability offers company directors, you have a duty of care to your company, its creditors, and to the general public. A breach of fiduciary duty in this respect can result in a claim for misfeasance being made against you.

MISREPRESENTATION;
'Untrue statements of fact or law made by Party A [or its agent] to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss'

When Trellis posts his questions, Im going to talk to some people I know in another shareholders group, about getting an opinion from a barrister.

....or was it £30 per share he suggested? I think it was wasnt it?