Member Info for PuzzledPete

I would have thought a need to feed his ego comes from someone here only 2 weeks, posting absolutely nothing of relevance to all here who have known the company and its ceo for nearly 7 years. So 'Good Luck to You Too Sir' !

PS. Of course we are waiting for the section 519 report due to be announced to shareholders any day now

"When auditors resign in the UK, they are legally required to submit a statement to the company explaining their reasons, or stating that there are no circumstances connected to their resignation that need to be brought to the attention of members (shareholders) or creditors. This is often referred to as a Section 519 statement.

Key Aspects of the Resignation Statement:Purpose: To protect the public interest by promoting transparency and accountability, as detailed in the ICAEW guide on auditor resignation responsibilities.

Content: The statement must detail the reasons for resignation, particularly if they involve fraud, malpractice, or a significant disagreement with management .

Public Record: If the auditor indicates matters that should be brought to the attention of shareholders, a copy must be sent to Companies House and the relevant audit authority (e.g., FRC or ICAEW

Deadline for the Auditor to Send the Statement

In the case of Resignation: The Section 519 statement must be sent to the company along with the formal notice of resignation. It cannot be delayed or sent after the notice.

Mandatory Reporting Requirements for Listed/Transition Category Companies (such as QDE)

Because the company is listed and treated as a Public Interest Entity:

No "No Circumstances" Exemption: Unlike private companies, the auditor must outline the detailed circumstances behind their departure. They cannot simply state that "there are no matters to bring to the attention of shareholders

".Notification to the Regulator: The auditor must also send a copy of this Section 519 statement to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) or the relevant supervisory body at the exact same time it is delivered to the company.

3. Subsequent Company Deadlines (For Context)

Once the auditor delivers the statement, the transition-category company must hit two strict deadlines:

To Shareholders: The company must send a copy of the Section 519 statement to every shareholder within 14 days of receiving it, unless they are applying to the court to claim the statement is defamatory

.To Companies House: The company must file a copy of the statement with Companies House within 14 days of receipt.

On the contrary - AI was fed with QDE's finances, its contracts, its lending covenants, its history since listing, everything germane to the questions it was asked. The circumstances of Crowe's resignation. Its listing history. You, though, probably know nothing of those things.

Trawling AI for all the implications of Crowe's (said by KP to be) one day resignation notice shows QDE is in extremely deep trouble with all the regulations you can dream up - and the chances even of signing a new auditor, let alone lifting suspension, within 6 months look very low. On top while QDE can continue its 'normal' business, it can't raise new funds, no one is likely to take the risk of signing contracts with it, and any lenders (eg Riverfort or any bank) can trigger a default on its lending agreements within, typically, only 10 to 30 business days of a share trading suspension. Given that PK was obviously desperate to make its latest £1 m cash raise (now only £500,000 - and even that might be cancelled) QDE might be bust within a month or so and Riverfort will take Pyebridge, while Powertree might take Hindlip. Shareholders will have nothing.

All my own opinion. But anyone can ask AI what it thinks - provided you give it all the relevant information.

Have a nice day

Charles archer is not a financial analyst. He has a law qualification but no financial qualifications or significant experience. He is a relatively inexperienced 'generalist' journalist, which is why he can be pulled up on quite a few of his company coverage where he misses significant financial aspects. All (what's little of it) from his own LinkedIn profile. So beware his takes on anything

Its a short life project. You don't apply a P/E to it. Its value will always be the discounted NPV of the remaining cash flows - maybe with adjustments for enthusiasm or boredom - at a discount rate that investors want - not what promoters want you to believe.

Funny that ! Same scam. Same promoters. Same result.

Interesting but not surprising that the other outfit resorting to the desperate and dodgy (and disastrous for original shareholders) pre-paid warrants scheme last year - Metals One - which preceded Mast by around six months , promoted by the same dodgy 'advisers' in Puerto Rico and Canada, has seen its shares behave exactly like Masts' (still the same rickety pile underneath the laughable 'Quantum Data Energy' monika) - now at a long time low and obviously going lower. So what's the connection ? Both ended up with so many shares in issue that whatever projects or schemes either company might succeed with are going to be so diluted that the share value can neve approach any worthwhile level or like even anything previously. So each cos shares are following the same, lower and lower trajectory (and so would QDE's if not suspended). Take a look at Met1 !

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of legal action might be taken by the (mostly US and Canada) original buyers of the warrants who, if they didn't take their wacking great profits in time, and the others sucked in to the spike will have lost out to the fraudulent 'promotions' they were fed by each co (Mast's ACF Research and the fake press reccs) in order to artificially boost the shares and make the scam work - for a time.

Saloon ? I don't think there's anything 'liitler' than someone been here less than 2 weeks, posting 5 times a day, on companies he obviously knows nothing about. I don't think he could even prop up a bar.

Crowe's 'going concern' statements would have been qualified in all full year and half results announcements from at least since 2022, if not for the co's long lists of reasons why management believed it could raise enough funds from various sources to avoid continuing insolvency. If you read them, hardly any of them came to pass and anyone could have calculated that QDE would have been seriously insolvent at end 2025 if not for the dodgy warrants scheme (as would be shown by the cash flow statements and might still have been insolvent) . I suspect Crowe had had enough of being in effect fobbed off. Any new auditor would probably feel the same. The longer it goes before any 'new auditor' is appointed the more likely QDE is bust (as predicted from early on, simply because Krugel's business model is not sustainable - in turn because the peaker generation business is not profitable enough to support the borrowing costs his lack of capital forces him to resort to)

I'm afraid, oh zen the 19th, 'honest' shareholders' never get much luck from a dishonest CEO.

And 'zen' (enlightenment) seems not to have alighted upon you yet.

Shares haven't reacted because there seems little point in Hannam's '3 x present price' valuation - before any adjustment for dilution from the fund raise.

What an inadequate little chap you are ! My ego has nothing to do with it. I'm posting what I know from years experience of these sorts of companies and PK's in particular. If as seems obvious you don't know anything about them, it seems its your ego has been dented in being shown up for a silly 'hope'. Goodbyeee - don't come back.

Do you know what 'strong' means Mr Saloon (are you a Bar or just from way out west ?)

For a company like QDE - in the field of engineering and energy 'projects' which all require up-front capital before producing results - it means a strong balance sheet - ie with enough cash to put down 'up front'. PK's outfit has never had any such cash, which is why 1) it has lurched from fund raise to yet another even more dodgy fund raise without really getting anywhere in the way of earnings for shareholders and 2) others in the field won't sign up to a joint venture with it except on onerous conditions (ie taking the vast majority of cash earnings oner way or another) and 3) the only two companies who have signed up were Powertree (who, mysteriously, a year ago was acc to PK going to help fund all future QDE projects, but equally mysteriously hasn't helped any of the subsequent ones) or Bordersley which has resorted to the chummy outfit who sold Bordersley to our friend PK in the first place. (and for which PK made shareholders pay an unwarranted fortune).

Best go back to that saloon bar if I were you, rather than dabble in these murky waters.

Crowe and risk. I have noticed that AI somtimes adds is own speculation - puts 2 and 2 together in a way not necessarily based on facts. So I don't think one should at the moment assume Crowe definitely blamed 'risk'. Having said tha,t they were fined last year for a sub standard audit of some company or other, and its highly likely they might think they can't guarantee getting to the bottom of PK's tangled webs - cf their repeated doubts about whether to pass Mast's accounts as for a 'going concern', without relying on lots of Mast's 'reassurances' they have ways of escaping from insolvency - which Mast has barely been able to do for a long time now without its dodgy fund raisings and reliance on borrowings. So its highly likely Crowe didn't want the risk - but they haven't said so. Having said all that again. If so, they surely wouldn't have resigned right up against a deadline. So even more likely is some interpretation of the accounts and going concern caveats couldn't be agreed with the company and a row went right up to the wire.

Nobody will sign up with a company whose audit seems to have been problematic. Joint ventures or partnrrships rely on both parties having more than enough financial resources to invest their share and to avoid going bust half-way through and leaving the other up in the air. Didn't you notice all the previous PK ventures which, mysteriously, didn't happen ?

4Pete. Where did you get that 'evaluation of risks' statement from ? If genuine, it should be announced byPK.

Or maybe we won't !

Baffled by all the smoke and mirrors that bamboozled the lemmings ? We'll see.

Re Loans.

Monty I haven't checked, except that PH is in the habit of saying 'Pye loan has been repaid 'from revenues'. Omitting to mention it can only be repaid from 'profits', which after depreciation and operating costs is no more than about 25% of revenues, and in the latest year is likely only just (with capacity payments) to cover an annual repayment of the o/s Pye loan. If in fact he (or rather the legally and financially separate Pye) has 'paid enough to cover the loan repayment it could possibly only be before paying the gas man or the maintenance man.

His obfuscations re 'net profit' he never mentions, rather than the 'revenue' he always trumpets, coupled with Pye's status as a separate SPV (needing an outstanding loan holder to agree any dividends paid up to QDE - after a year's audit) provides the smoke and mirrors he likes to operate behind