Member Info for Spikeyj

Ditto, useful read.

bear in mind that some POCA orders have been in place for a while on
certain individuals, which will have prevented transfer of some assets.

i wonder if they are aiming to pursue directors only, or
if they will also prosecute any (possible) shadow directors.

manifesto, i made no comment whatsoever
re HL investors. not sure what your point is.

if you are a WRN holder via HL, and you want to
contribute to the FCA investigation, nothing to
stop you contact them directly whether or not
they write to you first? my previous post simply
noting, public knowledge for long time now that
FCA were investigating, even AE admitted that.

bought some today,
two /three year view.

oil price ups & downs a bit academic for adme in terms of short-term
survival? - the very pressing issue is, adme is on the verge of trading
whilst technically insolvent, as almost entirely out of cash. so unless
they manage to get someone to cough up *very soon*, this goes bust.

Manifesto 19:55: “If there is a genuine FCA investigation ...”

manifesto, surely there’s no ‘if’ needed? even AE himself
confirmed long ago that the FCA were investigating - the
more important question is what it is leading to... some of
the enthusiasts have tended to claim that the FCA started
investigating because they had been told porkies by others.

... so a string of legal letters may indeed start
landing, but perhaps not on sceptics’ doormats.

? have you had your emails or letters from the FCA yet?

i would like to think that the FCA will take a balanced and
proportionate approach to any potential case, so it would
be helpful if FCA could hear from optimists & enthusiasts
such as yourselves, to help balance and nuance some of
the rather more critical accounts they may get from others.

tia.

? cancel the special dividend, but leave the other?

... gonna look bad if they pay those?

finally, things are looking up at wrn & whetstone,
with an impressive flow of shareholder updates,
exciting progress on material deals, & at long last
a string of legal letters landing on sceptics’ doormats.

... nah, not really, just april 1st...

bear in mind that a huge part of their cash burn
is actually from the *wages/renumeration bill*, so
shutting down aje won’t help with that one bit.

perhaps all directors should say that they are
happy to receive no cash, and instead be paid
entirely in new shares for, say, a 6 month period?

me, i doubt this particular government would put up much of a fight.
& yes indeed, i would be hoping for a bid very well in excess of pfizer’s.

well, yes and no. ian has a bit of a tendency to present some assumptions
as facts. and his claim the other day that EUA had engaged two investment
banks was hardly a real fact, was it? ... even he admitted that it was ‘a typo’.

but on the plus side, he is generally way better mannered than luc or PF.

(btw i meant the 19:01 by ian, not 19:51, apols for typo)

... and of course, the EUA RNS did *not* state
that the suspension is “due to a technicality”.

i do understand the *assumption* that you are making.
i am simply pointing out that it is not what the RNS states.

there has been no public statement at all about who asked
for the suspension to take place. things can sometimes be
a bit more complicated than they seem, & it can take a long
time for the truth to emerge. - e.g. worthington (WRN) was
an interesting case in point on the (non-premium) section
of the main market; when its shares went into suspension
several years ago after a spectacular price rise, fuelled by
various upbeat updates put out by the company, WRN put
out an RNS saying that the company had asked for trading
in their own shares to be suspended... that seemed clear
enough at the time... but a long while later (i think about a
year & a half into their loooong suspension, though i might
be misremembering by a few months either way) another
RNS referred back to the origination of the suspension,
but stated that the company had asked for shares
to be suspended **at the instruction of the FCA**, an
important detail that the the original RNS had left out.

i am not suggesting that the FCA has ordered this particular
suspension, just highlighting that it can sometimes be too
easy for people to read into an RNS what they want to read.

Ian_ 19:51: “The point is, the second and correct RNS is simply stating that due to a technicality the Nomad has deemed it prudent to suspend trading in this stock ...”

ian, the second RNS does *not* say that it was the
nomad who asked for trading to be suspended.

(it does direct queries about the situation to
the nomad, but that is not the same thing.)

i also like watching banger
racing & demolition derby.