Quindell CEO Robert Fielding: Tell us all about RTA Management Services Ltd and the £2 million?

Comments

1. ---

   turbograndad

   25 December 2014, 05:24

   Tom,
   Yet another dodgy deal to the already long list, hope Yourlegalfriend.co has an open ended accrual list of these deals, ongoing.
   Even if the lawyers get all the booty left, it would be good to see a bit of justice for these robbin bastards, meanwhile I await with baited ex shareholder breath.
   Enjoy your break.

2. ---

   Jane

   25 December 2014, 05:44

   RTA = Rob Terry Associates?

3. ---

   Warun Boofit

   25 December 2014, 08:43

   I read this as I listened to the Queens speech, she rattled on about reconciliation, immediately followed by Nickerless Witchel as if the BBC knew the proles would need a simple explanation they could understand. In the spirit of the Queens message you should invite Messrs Fielding Cutler and Harris round to the Real Man, share a big pizza and a bottle of wine to get to the bottom of this situation, see if there can be some reconciliation of the accounts although on second thoughts I think I would be packing my bags and flying off to somewhere with no extradition treaty.

4. ---

   Scott Sanderson

   25 December 2014, 14:44

   Oh wow another “dodgy deal” yet by some miraculous Christmas miracle Quindell has not been investigated by any professional body for any of these “dodgy deals” blogged about in the last 6 months.
   Go figure

5. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   26 December 2014, 00:12

   Scott

   Oddly fraudsters try to keep bent deals secret and while they do no-one investigates. The RTA deal is now no longer a secret. Game on.

   As to no-one investigating various Quenron activities, how can you be so sure?

   T

6. ---

   Forty Two

   26 December 2014, 01:06

   This can only be the tip of the iceberg. Much of their dodgy dealing is publicly discoverable (with the help of a companies house subscription and some digging as to who the people are they have bought the paper companies from – just as TW has been doing). Their core defence will probably be one materiality and two the AIM definition of a related party. Many of these deals will, sadly, fall under the materiality screen, which is that disclosure is required if any of gross assets, gross capital, profits or turnover of the acquired company exceeds 10% of the acquirer’s similar metric, or the consideration (incl. stock) exceeds 10% of the acquirer mkt cap. There is a clause that suggests that all deals in the past 12 months should be aggregated where the deal is with the same person or in the same (especially unrelated to the core) business as those previously acquired. Plenty of scope to run rings around the lawyers/regulators here. Then there’s the definition of a related party. Despite the long relationship with King, Sadiq, Scurry, Whiting, Passenden, Seargant etc etc AIM talks of a related party as someone who has been a director of an AIM company in the past 12 months. And that’s about it. So however many dodgy deals you have cut with your mates you are bunging wads to for paper companies, AIM doesn’t see them as related. So no disclosure required. At least that’s my take. I’m not a lawyer. Of course this in no way detracts from the fact that they have bought worthless companies from old pals at ridiculous and totally unjustifiable prices at the expense of shareholders. Nor from the fact that if you add up the tiny ones they are material too – especially at the current mkt cap : ). Nor does it detract from the fact that the company, and I presume its advisors, have not simply hidden behind materiality rules but have actually put disinformation into the market about prospective/existing profitability and prospects for these paper companies, that, and especially in the light of insider selling, would warrant an investigation into market abuse as well as insider dealing. I like you Tom am hearing the gears are grinding and the slow mechanism is starting to shift its attention to Quindell. While the PWC review should make interesting reading I think you have the measure of what it will say – so perhaps no surprises, just the shocking reality – though a concurrent delisting is of course quite possible. I will be fascinated if the class action succeeds as that will force them into more disclosure. And like I said, this is the tip of the iceberg – I dread to think what lies beneath…

7. ---

   Juicin Drumroll

   27 December 2014, 17:47

   On 23.12.2014 Helen Cutler resigned as a director of ACH MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED 08798478

   http://companycheck.co.uk/company/08798478

8. ---

   Lloorree

   28 December 2014, 11:45

   Merry Xmas Tom
   These lock ins seem as genuine as a present from Santa!!
   On a more serious note, how can you be sure that the lock ins have been “breached?”
   Thanks