Member Info for Sisteract

No need to apologies .It doest matter. I just have a different view. The corporate governance issue could have started any time after July 2020 but we have no idea when. The Ned's were in post then and they would have been fully aware of the issue and more than likely gave their advice, expertise at the time to the day to day management team.Subsequently they are given the lead of the corporate governance inquiry so presumably they are looking into their own advice.

I get the detail and the theory but in the real world how can people be truly Independent when they are shareholders and being paid by the company they are investigating. Does this account from the perceived unhelpfulness towards GT. GT have made damming accusations so who is at fault.. the NED's who DX seem to have blamed. Likely Story. !!

Why should they who are independent from day to day ops take the rap. !!.

The directors of Dx have brought this company from a successful turnaround now in profit to a very uncertain future. I for one can't understand why no-one who is responsible for it hasn't fallen on their sword.

I think we all know what the responsibilities of directors are both exec or non exec. If they all behaved in the manner they are supposed to we wouldn't have half the issues and business failures we do especially on the AIM.

Could be... but DX investigating DX in what is obviously a major problem was never going to end well. !

The point I was making was that Ian Gray and Paul Cookson (NED's)were leading the corporate governance inquiry presumably appointed by DX. DX then say that the inquiry was not progressing expediently as initially hoped and they "resigned". GT then prattle on about un -helpfulness, access to documents, potential breaches of law, privilege etc.etc The two NED's were in post thought the period all this was going on( 20/21) so effectively they are marking their own homework. The theory is fine.....but in practice !

I don't think there are any assumptions on here like that. People just give their opinion on what they think might happen, could happen and what options there are. DX aren't telling us anything apart from stating the obvious so that is all we can do.

It's like investigating your own actions. Hardly a recipe for independence.

That might be the case but there has to be an end game somewhere. If the Secretary of state doesn't get involved who does. I've read a lot of the information regarding the Secretary of states responsibilities with regard to audits and the companies act and I can't see why an auditor can't be appointed not withstanding the corporate governance issue. We have been assured the corporate governance issue is not a financial matter.

If there has been some corporate skulduggery as some have suggested then I can understand why GT felt they had to resign. If business has been obtained through illegal means then there is no way any auditor will take the role without completion of any legal case or unless instructed by the secretary of state.

It has always struck me as strange that the corporate governance enquiry was led by two NED's who are paid by DX oversee the management of the company and provide independent objective advice and support.
None of it makes the slightest sense.

P... Why do think this has not been referred to the Secretary of State ?

Perhaps we should try to call a shareholders meeting..... Can we raise over 5% ?

Pianista.. If DX haven't been considering strategic alternatives I'd be astounded. It is the BOD's responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders and prepare for all risks. They would have been fully aware of a potential delist and its implications for months and if they haven't been preparing for it then it is negligence of unbelievable proportions.

They have been burying their heads in the sand if they have been focusing on running the business, putting all their eggs in one basket hoping to get an auditor in place with a rushed audit.

I can't believe Gatemore ( an activist fund) would intervene and then sit on their hands and together with other ii's blindly support a never ending corporate governance enquiry, potential forced delist, reduction in shareholder value in some misplaced hope in appointing an auditor when they are swimming against the tide.

They can't be that naive ... surely. !

I think its a five year wait to relist on the AIM but they could of course apply for the main market I suppose once problems are dealt with.

I still favour a merger though. !

I thought it was a 5 year wait to relist but I may be wrong. Does anyone know ?

If Dx were serious about bringing this suspension to an end and maintaining their AIM listing I don't know why a GM hasn't been called and DX's failure to appoint an auditor has not been referred to to the Secretary of State for an appointment.

The decision has obviously been made they that don't see any value in maintaining this listing.

I can't remember who said it but a Merge looks the likely option moving forward as I can't see where the substantial money is coming from to drive the business forward.

Shareholders are meant to be treated equally..... let's hope that's true !

Here you are:
https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2022/05/16/uncertain-future-for-dx-shareholders/

I've actually coming to the conclusion that Dx are quite happy to delist and are now considering strategic alternatives after. They might be telling us they are hoping to appoint an auditor but without any realistic possibility.

There has been no mention of the corporate governance issue since February
No Interims or mention of any AIM sanction
No notification of the other 4/5 depots that are meant to be opening by July yet
No mention of any AIM extension application.

Almost as if they are keeping secrets. !

"A DX spokesperson said shareholders would hold shares in a private company if the company were removed from Aim."

Is it me or is this just a bad article.

DX doesn't become a private company if it delists. All it means is that is shares are not traded on the AIM. Unless I have lost my marbles shareholders have to vote to take it private.

Is that confirmation that DX want to take it private or is it a bad confusing article.

I'd agree with that. But I'd be really surprised if they do produce that rabbit. !!
Dx have told us the bare minimum over six months.
GT have taken a lot of criticism on this discussion board but their reasons for resigning have been completely justified by the failure to appointment another
auditor.

DX completely caved in to Gatemore in December. Gatemore obviously had the other II's onboard in writing that letter threatening a shareholders meeting. They had the BOD by the S and C's. Within 8 days of Meidars appointment there is an announcement of a review of the Growth Strategy led by Meidar. That is Gatemore taking control. I don't think for one minute Lloyd and the BOD wanted them on the board but they were left with no option.

I fundamentally disagree that express is nothing more than "They have no major ambitions in express beyond having some services that might be useful to freight customers. "

The opening of the dedicated express depots last year and planned six more not to mention the tens of depot sales managers recruited in the last months dedicated to express. That's not the actions of a company using the service as some sort of sweetener to recruit and satisfy freight customers.

Why not open more freight depots. By DX's own calculations they have about 20% of the 1 and 2 man freight market so there is plenty to go at and its far more profitable.

Isn't it good to have some intelligent debate with good reasoned points. I agree with your point in finding your niche but I don't get your point about effectively playing at express. The investment in the last year and planned doesn't really point to that. They've announced plans to develop a European express offering which doesn't imply they are fiddling around as an extra to offer existing freight customers. I for one would be pleased if they focussed on freight but I can't believe the planned growth in express with its margins is just a strategy to win and offer more to freight customers. It doesn't make sense to spend all that money on what I presume you imply is a sideline.

Gatemore were instrumental in appointing the current directors but the relationship has obviously soured with Gatemore making their demands last December and throwing their weight around.

I still can't see what sense there is in a non logistics person being in charge of a review of a growth strategy for a logistics business. Gatemore wanted experienced people in at the outset but now they don't and want drive the business in their own direction. Operationally Lloyd has effectively lost control of the business in my view.

Presumably Lloyd agreed to Meidar joining the board and heading the a review of the growth strategy and capital allocation policy as announced in December..... a man with no logistics experience. ? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. !

I agree to a point in freight but DX are trying to be so much more than that. You made the point that DX would suffer without lloyds leadership. I just don't get that. I don't believe one man makes a difference in that sort of business when there is plenty of experience in the company and industry. Vox markets have been Lloyds biggest cheerleader in the last year or so .... "everyone wants to work for Lloyd.... Blah blah blah....... Look where he's got us... he's CEO.