Member Info for Spikeyj

yes, it would be interesting to know what forecasts
were actually provided, and the basis of those was.

but it's unlikely any such data will be made available.
so i suppose fundamentally, it depends how much
one feels one can trust the various parties involved?

2013, "stock swap" between motivideo and rapid:

"Since its inception in 2012, Motivideo Systems, Inc. and its wholly owned Southern California operating subsidiary, Motivate Health Technologies, Inc., have finalized a license agreement which grants Motivideo exclusive access in the health and wellness field to the unique patented technology held by NTECH Properties, Inc. that makes the Motivideo Coaching System possible. Motivideo has acquired a seven percent (7%) stake in NTECH. In association with NTECH and technology inventor, Dwight Marcus, the company has formed VuShaper LLC and retains a thirty-eight percent (38%) stake. VuShaper, LLC, developed the technology that powers the Motivideo Coaching System and will market the technology to a variety of industries.

Motivideo has assembled a stellar management and advisory team, which will be announced in coming weeks. It has penned a joint venture with Rapid Nutrition Ltd (GXG:RNL) for the joint launch of Rapid Nutrition's consumable product line which agreement included a $2.5 million USD stock swap. "

https://www.dgap.de/dgap/News/corporate/motivideo-systems-inc-motivideo-poised-meet-urgent-health-industry-needs/?newsID=769482

so far as i can see, there doesn't seem to be much public data
available about motivideo financials within the last few years.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/motivideo-systems-inc--motv-/prn/annual-financial-report/20141029130647P5FA9/

kinda makes one wonder what motivate / motivideo are doing now,
in terms of customers, products, sales, etc, that gives them value.

... it doesn't seem to be easy to work out where on the
internet one could sign up to buy services or products
from motivate (e,g. such as coaching apps or videos?)

but i'd be very happy to see any recent links/public data etc that
others can see which would help show the underlying business.

a large item in rapid's accounts is its holding of shares
in "motivate health technologies inc." sadly, there does
not seem to be much public information out there about
what motivate is actually doing now, how it is operating now
and where, & what's its underlying real business & worth is

rapid says that it "received an independent assessment of
fair value" in june 2019. ... it would be quite interesting to
know who conducted that assessment, & what the financial
details were for how that "fair value" was actually calculated.

(motivate is a pretty big part of rapid's accounts, so rapid's balance sheet
could look very different if motivate's valuation changed significantly.)

https://afb2dea8-5e8a-468b-bb48-4922a3d45470.filesusr.com/ugd/59141f_d5a75138fff74fc5a643f407cf218310.pdf

"Financial Instruments
The Group holds shares in other companies, Motivate Health Technologies, Inc., Streamcast Marketing LLC, Rapid Nutrition Asia Pty Ltd., Rapid Nutrition Australia Pty Ltd and Rapid Nutrition Canada Inc."

"Financial assets held for trading:
- Investments in equity instruments
Motivate Health Technologies, Inc.

30 June 2019 $5,951,435
30 June 2018 $ 6,123,659

Shares held for trading are traded for the purpose of profit taking. Changes in fair value are included in the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. The Company received an independent assessment of fair value of its minority investment in Motivate Health Technologies Inc as at 30th June 2019. The valuation was undertaken on a going concern basis. Calculation of the value for the business and equity were prepared on a Discounted Cash Flows basis. The Company holds a 13.9% minority shareholding in Motivate Health Technologies, Inc. (4,450,000 out of 32,035,742 shares)."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-Todays-Oil-Price-Plunge-A-Sign-Of-Things-To-Come.html

whetstone has not been "delisted",
because it was never listed in the
first place -- the shares were never
admitted to trade on a real exchange.

they had simply purchased access
to a small platform which took a
fee for matching up holders of the
shares to arrange a private trade.
that wasn't the same as a listing.

"I am saying any predetermined holding would be off the record, a secret deal that would never be revealed"

careful. borders on the defamatory to suggest
that an AIM broker would do any such thing.

it's not hard to guess the kind of issues that HMRC will be interested in.
one would expect FCA to share information from their investigations
as a matter of course about any individuals that FCA hears about who
who were making profits from trading blocks of these shares but where
there is any possible uncertainty about how much tax they then paid.

(anyone in that position would be v. well advised to crack on and
make an appropriate declaration now to HMRC voluntarily, rather
than wait until HMRC open up a case file and start getting forensic.
HMRC tend to be kinder with late declaration vs active concealment.)

07:56, good post.
let us hope.

i don't doubt that from amit's point of view,
all is just hunky-dory with ctag! the problem is,
his interests are way different from anyone else.

maybe no skeleton in the room, but
the spectre of having to preside over a
managed decline and eventual demise.
who wants to be CEO of crumbling empire?

13:37, good post,
and sadly true imo.

davidkip's commentary elsewhere regarding
whetstone selling down its RAP stake is worth
reading. - he notes the possibility that assets
are being cashed up to prevent them just going
to the Crown if the company does indeed head
all the way down into a compulsory strike off.

he also notes that if whetstone gets dissolved
in that way, there would be no obligation to
publish accounts that showed where any of that
money eventually ended up, & via what routes.

(still, time enough left for whetstone to publish
a confirmation statement, if they want to do so?)

presumably, two key issues.

one, is there any wrong-doing that can actually be proved?

although it is encouraging to see the FCA apparently taking
the time to look carefully at what happened, just because
the FCA is investigating does not mean that any criminal
charges will be brought, nor that convictions will result.

two, *if* some wrong-doing is prosecuted then proven,
do the persons or entities found to have done something
wrong actually have any assets which could be used in
order to provide any redress? poca orders can be used
by courts to secure such assets in advance of outcomes.

has anyone noticed if any poca orders have been applied for?

thanks for the information gumt, appreciated.

i'm guessing circa 3.5p - 4p.

they probably don't need additional
cash until about easter just to keep the
lights on, but they will need other cash
in order to be able to implement any of
those deals for other opportunities, &
to pay towards drilling new aje wells.

(- i am assuming that holders of any good
quality assets won't settle for paper only.)

gumt, it's not so much that it is difficult to understand, more
that for years with WRN there's been a long, long history of
different factions apparently trying to 'spin' their version of
what is going on via share chat boards, twitter, blogs, and
closed WhatsApp groups etc. so at this point although a
number of people are claiming on the lse board that they
have received letters from the FCA, other people have
been suggesting that this is 'fake news', intended to try
to cause further harm to WRN & the people associated
with it. - that seems to be a similar line of thinking to
the suggestion repeatedly made by some enthusiasts
for WRN that it failed because of 'tortious interference'.

so far, none of the people who claim they have received
letters from the FCA have shown the actual text of what
that letter says, & it is still only relatively small number of
people who say they've got one (perhaps 9 or 10 so far?).

so it is understandable that some folks think it's not true.

chriszzr, if peel were buying for somebody else,
rather than on their own account, they would
be legally obliged to declare that. - it is not
permitted to hide beneficial ownership of a
large stake in a company by getting someone
else to build up your stake under their name.

gumt,

"We, the shareholders are asked to provide information about what influenced us to buy shares in WRN prior to this indefinite suspension."

it sounds like you have had one of those letters from the FCA:
- is that one of the questions that the FCA asks in their letter?

unclear what compensation options there may be for
shareholders. but it appears some POCA orders in place.
if so, there might be some assets that could be distributed.

perhaps one of the chinese investors whose
stake had long ago fallen below the 3%?

we don't know whether most of those
earlier chinese investors are still in or not.

roy has been wondering if the people who are saying
that the FCA has contacted them might be folks with
WRN share certificates, with a different timescale for
those who held WRN through nominee account. has
anyone with broker/nominee holding had an FCA letter?

... odd that people seem to be getting such letters,
when presumably this is all just a small unfortunate
misunderstanding on FCA's part. one would think,
after 4-5 years FCA would have realized their error?