My apologies
@Successwillcome. Let me be clearer so as to remove any perceived ambiguity as I seem to have touched a sensitive nerve :-
1. I would like to know where the announcement that '
the barrister which SGH chose said there was no grounds was a claim of fraud'.
FACT: It came from WTG's RNS as follows:
Prospective claim by Slater and Gordon
Thu, 11th May 2017 07:00
RNS Number : 7958E
Watchstone Group PLC
11 May 2017
Watchstone Group plc
("Watchstone" or the "Group")
Prospective claim by Slater and Gordon
Further to its announcement on 30 November 2016, Watchstone Group plc (LON:WTG) has now received further correspondence from a firm of solicitors acting for Slater and Gordon Limited (ASX: SGH) ("SGH") stating that it intends to issue proceedings by the end of this month. Its letter states that SGH intends to make a claim for a total amount of approximately £600m on the basis that but for fraudulent misrepresentation it would not have entered into the transaction at all.
A groundless claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was dismissed by the independent barrister in respect of the warranty escrow process relating to the sale of the Professional Services Division in November 2016 ("Opinion"). The Opinion, which was formed on the basis of evidence provided by both SGH and Watchstone, stated that a misrepresentation claim was not a bona fide claim with a better than 50 per cent prospect of success.
Watchstone denies any misrepresentation in the strongest terms and remains satisfied that neither the warranty claim nor a misrepresentation claim have merit and will defend such claims robustly if proceedings are brought.
Despite multiple requests, SGH has continuously declined to disclose key evidence in its possession which would be relevant to the merits and quantum of its purported claims. Watchstone believes this evidence will be available to it in the event that SGH issues proceedings and it intends to seek disclosure of such information at the earliest possible opportunity.
Watchstone will make further announcements in due course, as appropriate.
2. Also is this your opinion or it is a fact?
'reckless approach being taken but I suppose 'needs must' as Grech and the team have almost zero credibility now having boasted about the thoroughness of their DD'
It is my opinion that SGH are taking a reckless approach with shareholders' horrifically diluted investments.
It is FACT that a large number of people are questioning Grech's credibility after the
FACT that he repeatedly shouted about the thorough and unparalleled DD that was done by his team.
Believe me: I understand your frustration because WTG shareholders have also gone through that gut-wrenching, nausea-inducing fear. But you do need to try to maintain some sense of perspective:-
- 18 months in and the SFO have brought zero charges whatsoever (I cant say I'm cmpletely happy about that)
- The FCA terminated their owb enquiry
- SGH investors were repeatedly told what a thorough job had been done when they bought PSD
Its frustrating, I'm sure. But please: don't wag your finger with an accusation of defamation. We're all in the same boat as private investors.......
Big friendly hugs
Grumpy
