Member Info for richred_uk

There is no board any more - just AZ and the woman who runs the "Company Rescue" service that has been appointed.

The rest did runners (surely "left to concentrate on other projects" ed.) on 9th & 13th Jan.

"Under UK employment law you need minium of 2 years continual employment to pursue a 'civil' employment tribunal case which is not 'criminal" but a civil case..In effect RTOP UK made the redundancies within the two year window which means they are unable to bring the matter to an industrial tribunal..nothing new here happens to thousands of people every year with company wind ups."

It may be possible that the employees were 'TUPE'd' over - I am not an expert in this area, so I don't know whether that can happen from EU to UK or did happen in this case, but I don;t think it impossible.

Hi usersteve, I know. 2g2d was claiming that Crowe specifically cited on going concern risks as their reason for resignation. I assert that they haven't cited a specific risk in public and that 2g2d was making facts up to fit his narrative. If I am incorrect and 2g can show me the evidence to back his statement of fact, I will happily have learned something and he will look informed and increase his trustworthiness. But I suspect he is just making stuff up again. We did go round this yesterday, but the thread disappeared.

2G2D, I must have missed the evidence you produced earlier when things got deleted. So, where did Crowe cite going concern risk as their reason for resigning as SupplyMe's auditor?

Do you now accept that RTOP hasn't been liquidated as you previously stated it had been?

Https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14721885/filing-history

^ - proof that they are not a dormant company and not technically liquidated. These are specific legal terms that you seem to throw around casually.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything vis-a-vis RTOP, I *am* convinced that you make up whatever fits your agenda and write it down with no thought or proof. Also, you don't seem to grasp that the person making the assertion (you with regards to RTOP being liquidated/ ceased trading) carries the burden of proof. As I am trying to assert that you make up stuff willy-nilly (or at least speak very carelessly), I have provided proof.

Re-posting as TG2D obviously missed it:

TwoGood2Die: "Wouldn't it be be far easier and cheaper simply just to apply for liquidation as was the case with RTOP."

also TwoGood2Die: "RTOP ceased trading because basically there was no future business potential."

Where are you getting "ceased trading" and "liquidation" from in the case of RTOP? My understanding was that they had de-listed, not liquidated or ceased trading.

TwoGood2Die: "Wouldn't it be be far easier and cheaper simply just to apply for liquidation as was the case with RTOP."

also TwoGood2Die: "RTOP ceased trading because basically there was no future business potential."

Where are you getting "ceased trading" and "liquidation" from in the case of RTOP? My understanding was that they had de-listed, not liquidated or ceased trading.

If you read Spicy Sausage's posting history, you will also find them directly insulting 1984 in one of their posts a while back. So his multiple personalities don't even like each other.

"claims it had generated $120m in revenue from 4.6m subscribers.

Falsified company statements were unearthed revealing both numbers were negligible "

Negligible revenue is the link between SYME and and Akazoo rather than the difference :)

SYME RNS 25/9 "Crowe U.K. LLP has stated in its notification to the Company that they have resigned having carried out a reassessment of the risks related to auditing the Company"

AccountingWeb story 11/12/24 - Crowe reprimanded and fined £455k in Akazoo audit fiasco

"Suspicions were raised following Crowe’s green light of the 2018 audit of Akazoo, which claimed to be a music streaming service, despite not having any paying customers.

The audit gave the business leverage to trade publicly through a special merger vehicle that later turned out to have defrauded investors.

Investors pumped more than $55m in as Akazoo went public in 2019 on claims it had generated $120m in revenue from 4.6m subscribers.

Falsified company statements were unearthed revealing both numbers were negligible and the firm had no paying customers."

"As part of the punishment, Crowe must perform a root cause analysis to understand how the issues occurred and how it plans to avoid a repeat. The remedy will include submitting sample audits to the regulator to show progress has been made."

I wonder if the SYME resignation was linked to SNIP 2 - "how it plans to avoid a repeat"

Key sentences for me:

"After a period of contemplation and reflection, I have decided to part ways with Supply@ME Capital plc. " Makes it clear that he has left rather than been sacked.

"As I depart I would like to thank: Amy Benning for keeping her head in incredibly difficult circumstances" Translates as "we have no cash but she is doing her best to make it work".

I would put these 2 together and it suggests that he is leaving a struggling operation before it crashes and burns (in his mind at least).

Pretty close comparison. I just looked and #502 on the list I found was Amentum Holdings, Inc. (AMTM) which had an MCAP of USD 5.94B. GAW has an MCAP of GBP 4.52B which is roughly USD 5.65B. I think the reason # 502 was counted as in the S&P500 is that #500 & 501 were sub-classes of shares (so the list had A & B classes in it), but I stand to be corrected.

The LinkedIn piece is by Fintech Investor = Hughes = Market Master. Interestingly it's replied to by Savvy.

(sorry hit return mid -typing)

Suspension until:

1 Receipt of $2.5M in funding - no date set, but $1.5M claimed to be imminent by AZ on 16th May - would appear that neither the $1.5M or subsequent $1M has happened yet. BUT doesn't have any set date - the 31 Oct 24 date is only for the accounts.

2 Publication of the 2024 accounts - supposed to happen " on or shortly before 31 October 2024" - looks unlikely to happen

3 " the Company is in advanced talks with a new CEO which will be concluded once funding of $1.5m has been received by the Company" - this isn't actually a requirement of suspension being lifted according to the RNS, but you would assume that it would happen prior to re-listing as it is supposed to happen after the receipt of $1.5M which should happen prior to or at the same time as the receipt of $2.5M

So even is the accounts do come today (pretty sure they won't), suspension could drag on for months.

Latiino wrote: "It’s 31st October today and RNS said all to be sorted by today this includes ‘imminent’ funding from AZ which he said means WILL happen, new CEO appointment and results."

Now I have re-read the suspension RNS, and while it reads like it will all be sorted by today on a cursory read through, it actually doesn't say that.

It says "The Company intends to apply to the FCA for a restoration of its listing following receipt of $2.5m in funding and publication, expected to be on or shortly before 31 October 2024, of the Company's annual report and accounts for the period ending 30 June 2024."

and

"has requested that the listing of the Company's ordinary shares be suspended until the Company has received US$2.5m in funding and published its annual report and accounts for the period ending 30 June 2024. "

So the suspension is until:

1

From the Suspension RNS:

"and publication, expected to be on or shortly before 31 October 2024, of the Company's annual report and accounts for the period ending 30 June 2024."

I think we are fairly safe to say that they won't be published shortly before 31 October 2024. Anyone think they will be published tomorrow?

Where do you that "At least there is some life here, BoD appear working to bring this back"?

No funding

No CEO

No CFO

No Auditor

Come 31st, very likely to be no accounts.

How many are actually left on the BoD?

No, not 600m outstanding after the but back, the company has 5.8 ish billion shares in issue. They are allowed to buy back 600m if they can afford it for 200m cash, they will likely end up buying back about 90m shares as that will be what the market price is. They will end up with 5.75 billion shares in issue very roughly.

600m is the maximum that the company can buy back (I'm not an expert, but I guess it's part of their authority granted or the company's articles, as it looks to be 10% of shares in issue). They could only do that with 200m if the share price absolutely collapsed, but it is what They have authority to do. No one expects them to buy back 600m shares for 200m cash, but they legally can if the opportunity was there.