Member Info for usernames

Senator - to dismiss points about the hearing as "phycho babble" (if that point was aimed at my post) is missing the point.

The BOD have to take responsibility for what happened in Court. Either their barrister screwed up, or they were bent putting forward an argument that they knew to be false.

The BOD shouldn't be making mistakes and if they are, are they the right people to "rectify the mistakes of the past" when those mistakes were made by them? Did they not fully appreciate what was at stake?

As you can probably tell, I don't have much confidence in the BOD atm. However, I'm in this now and don't want to sell at a loss.

HH - the FCA didn't blindside anyone. Two possibilities were presented to creditors; the deal or probable administration. The FCA said (albeit late in the process) that this wasn't a fair choice to present to creditors. Dicker knew what he was up against on the day.

Counsel's job was to go into Court and defend both the deal on offer AND the alternative senario. Dicker was either poorly prepared to defend the claim in relation to the administration threat, or was completely out of his depth. Either way, I don't think he was well prepared to face the obvious questions. I almost felt embarrassed for him.

He should have had as many conferences with his client as he needed prir to the hearing to understand why administration was a real threat and been able to run rings around the FCAs barrister. From what I saw from ISAs notes, unfortunately he didn't have it nailed down.

The short answer is no.

Grounds for appeal are that there was a mistake as to fact or law made by the original Court. You could also appeal on the grounds of procedural irregularity.

Revising the original SOA and replacing it with a different one is not a basis for appealing against the rejection of the original SOA.

The BOD will need to reach some sort of understanding with the FCA (and indirectly FOS) before approaching creditors or the Court again. Either that, or be able to clearly demonstrate to the Court on appeal that insolvency is a realistic prospect in the short to medium term.

The longer the next RNS on the matter takes, the more optimistic I feel. There must be a lot of high level meetings taking place with stakeholders and it is encouraging that conversations are ongoing. The SP will stay down until there is some good news but that's got to be better than the company folding.

Well, it's not really about the degree by which it was rejected, if that could even be quantified.

It was a simple case of being approved or being rejected. Rejection was a 100% failure IMHO.

I'm not sure why you think Gary came close, but good luck to you.

If someone was accused of burglary and told their barrister that his defence was that he was at home on the night in question (honest guv), the barrister should check to see what evidence there is to support the defence. It would be nuts if the barrister just said "brilliant, let's go with that!"

In this case, the QC should have been prepared to defend the insolvency argument in some detail. He fell way short of the mark on that and was simply unprepared to deal with the issue thoroughly.

GTK - agreed, a decent QC will not stand in front of a judge and state that the client is facing administration without having seen the evidence that proves it. What evidence was there? Statements from the client backed up by what exactly?

Kick the tyres before setting of on the journey. If Freshfields couldn't tell him, they should have gone back to the client and got the evidence.

Forgive my ignorance but how up to date we're those projections?

They said admin was the most likely alternative. That's not definitive; there were obviously less likely alternatives some of which may yet to be put forward.

IMHO the BOD have engaged in a silly gamble that has backfired leaving egg on their faces.

They presented the SOA as being an alternative between the deal as presented, or most likely they would have to go into administration. The key to this IMHO is the phrase 'most likely', or whatever the weasel words were that they actually used. The implication being that there were also some less likely alternatives to administration in the minds of the BOD when they put the proposal forward, they just didn't want to go into it because they wanted the deal to go through.

The FCA felt it important that the company put the other alternatives to creditors or back up that they would indeed go into administration. The BOD wasn't able to demonstrate they would go insolvent, hence we are where we are.

I, therefore, believe that a new proposal will be put forward in due course. When and on what terms is anyone's guess. This is just my view, of course, the company could go belly up later today for all I know so please DYOR.

Doubt it. It's a bank holiday so the markets will bee closed.

Was it not the FCA that, effectively, called the BODs liars...? The judge also agreed with the FCAs position.

Thanks prolee. Now I've got that Britney song going around and around in my head.

Heres Hoping - I've got shares in this company FYI. Not that the bb is restricted to comments from shareholders...?

And I am pi55ed that the BOD of a company I have invested in "may" have attempted to mislead the regulator, the court, creditors and shareholders.

The deal offered in the SOA doesn't seem to be the only deal in town despite what was said by Amigo. If we'd have known that we could have taken that into account when assessing the likelihood of the SOA being approved.

I think the only thing the BOD could say is that the company's fortunes improved between the date the SOA was put to creditors and the date of the court hearing.

Obviously, they should have mentioned this on the day of the hearing but I can't see what else they could say if they really aren't facing administration in the short to medium term.

I do wonder what the BOD were thinking when they presented the SOA as being a "it is this or nothing" senario. And why would their legal advisers go along with such a pretence, if they didn't have the information to back up what was being presented to the judge? If I was standing in front of a judge, I'd want to know that what I was saying was correct!

A court room isn't a casino; you don't go in there in the hope of bluffing your way to a win. So why would the BOD go into court saying this is black or white, when they knew there were many shades of grey inbetween? They've lost all credibility IMHO by claiming that they would face immediate liquidation if that isn't actually the case. If it is the case, why weren't they able to demonstrate that in court...?

I hope that somebody is held to account over this diabolical situation the company now finds itself in.

Thank you CreativeNE and Malpenn.

Does anyone know which firm is acting for Amigo?

My thanks in advance.

That does it PFen, you're filtered :)