UK 13:57 Monday, 26 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Well I can’t say that Quindell’s attempt to get a summary judgement on this little matter is going terribly well. I bring you in full the judgement of Judge Travis J Laster from 14th October 2014. You can draw your own conclusions but I put it to you that it provides little encouragement for the morons.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
turbograndad
All there in black and white, typical trying to riggle out on the basis, I quote from judge, Quindell in a bad financial situation, ver batum, ad nauseum, excuse latin.
david
“Defendant Quindell is a company registered in England and Wales, and currently owns 85 percent of HIMEX.
The individual defendants are Hassan Sadiq, Ismail Essack, and Michael McFall. Sadiq is also Chairman and CEO of HIMEX and owns 36 percent of HIMEX.”
So, Quindell owns 80% of Himex and Sadiq 36%? 2+2=5 again?
Jonathan
That is quite something, one wonders why it wasn’t announced formally by the company.
The motion to dismiss being denied is of course not an issue, it is quite common. The issue is that it would appear, from this summary, that one of the reasons QPP gave to dismiss was that it was in a bad financial position.
Given that it is in a court judgement and based on papers they themselves have submitted it is hard for anyone to dispute that this is the case. And so the debate of cash flow vs cash position seems (for me at least) to have been decided. Whatever their cash flow position, their cash position is clearly very weak, and by the company’s own admission.
I am sure BB posters will have an opinion on this, although I suspect most opinions will be ad hominem attacks on you TW. Why that should be the case in this instance I genuinely don’t know, as this document is legal and based on QPP’s own submissions, no one elses. Time for them to refocus their ire and demand clarity from the board, and to demand it before the Q4 results they all believe will be so clear…
john g
“Now, it may be that Quindell [sic] is
in a bad financial situation. I don’t think that that
alters the pleading standard, and it certainly doesn’t
alter the conversion of this motion to one for summary
judgment, which, for whatever reason, the defendants
chose to do.”
P10, Lines 11..16
john g
“Perhaps your subsidiary might
be in a dire financial strait. If, then, you could
get dismissal under a heightened pleading standard
because your subsidiary was in a dire financial state,
that would be a really nifty form of procedural
protection for a controller, because you could achieve
the beneficial procedural outcome through the
underlying substantive wrong that could then not be
challenged because of your success in perpetrating the
underlying substantive wrong.”
p10 lines 1 to 10
john g
So the defendants (Quindell) themselves claim they are “in a bad financial situation” (and the “subsidiary might
be in a dire financial strait”.) hence want “summary judgement”
alcira16247
TurboGrandad
My thoughts exactly!
What a strange statement for a US judge to make, unless he was given information that indeed (Dorsey & Whitney LLP) that its true!
But, hasn’t Quindell, been assuring UK investors that its finances are on course to meet market expectations, etc etc.
What’s the true position, Quindell? Another RNS on Monday, please!
Jonathan
By the way. RumbleInTheJungle seems to be copy/pasting my comments from here onto the QPP Bulletin Board on LSE.
Please don’t, or at least please state that you are pasting someone else’s statements. You are clearly an unpleasant person and I would rather you didn’t suggest people confuse you with me.
Sweet Karolina
I would have thought that the fact Himex were being sued was a material event for QPP and should have been announced!
They have clearly handled the whole thing badly with their motion to dismiss. Not only has this been denied but discovery have been broadened as a result.
Reading between the lines part of the case for dismissal seems to be that Himex and Quindell are in dire financial situations and having a long expensive drawn out case against them will send them bust and therefore continuing with it is not in the interests of either party.
The plaintiff’s lawyers will scent blood now. The US legal system is highly principled and judgements like this are common place – go and fight it out in discovery then come back for a trial if you still want one. The fact that the lawyers then tie the whole thing down in pointless motion after pointless motion racking up the bills so the winner is whoever runs out of money to pay their lawyers last, turns the whole thing into a farce. Especially as the judge has indicated sympathy for the defendants, which means for plaintiffs to win they must cost the defendants as much as possible in legal bills. No doubt they will oblige.
Paulie Walnuts
This may well be the most astonishing document seen so far.
QPP are telling a US judge, presumably under oath, that they are in a dire financial situation (top of page 9), and yet are also telling UK investors they’re meeting all KPI’s, etc.
AIM regulation and the FCA should hang their heads in shame here. Ordinary PI’s yet again get shafted.
ST
What does [sic] mean after Quindell? Just wondering if anyone on here knows. I am not sure,
john g
Tom
a summary of this wouldn’t go amiss. Spell it out to the QPP bulls what the judge is really saying here.
tia
alcira16247
Tom
Are we to assume from the Judge’s summary that the subsidiary in “ a dire financial strait” is Himax? That can’t be true! I refuse to believe it, FULL STOP!
That a entrepreneur of Mr Terry’s repute could possibly purchase a company for, what £150+ million in February and then to allude its going bust less than nine months later, defies belief!
Oh yes, those nasty detractors may allege that Mr Terry only bought Himax cos it belonged to his old mucker Sadiq Hassan! And that good old Saiq had stolen NavSeeker, Inc. (dba The Evogi Group) cos up to that time Himax hadn’t got nought!
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2014/07/Himex-class-action.pdf
Its too awful to even contemplate that it could all be possibly be true!
Paulie Walnuts
I’ve only just clocked the date of the document being 14th October 2014.
So, QPP have been “in a dire financial situation” for at least the last month and a half.
Kind of explains why the directors were so keen to sell their shares…… Unbelievable Jeff !!!
ST
Yes John G, good call, come on Tom spell it out. What is your true understanding of this document. Explain to everyone what [sic] after Quindell really means, as it clearly is not a spelling error.
bon
Guys no legal egeal but my take on the court doc is that NavSeeker is in financial difficulty and himex which owns 80% is looking to take what it can from navseeker and the claimants probably other 20% of NavSeeker want to get paid a better price been offered for the assets of NavSeeker. People need to read the doc again cause this is just some shareholders of NewSeeker looking for more money for assets of a company in financal difficulty which himex owns 80% no big deal …
Sted Eddy
Bon
Hooray finally someone has seen it as it is. What is the matter with the rest of you?
Quindell [sic]
Sic—generally inside square brackets, [sic], and occasionally parentheses, (sic)—when added just after a quote or reprinted text, indicates the passage appears exactly as in the original source. The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription—that they are reproduced exactly from the original
Why was this even posted here, you should explain yourself Mr Winnifrith.