Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

SGH

Click for more information

0.00%

54.5¢ slater & gordon limited

hopefully for wtg's sake their legal team don't test the court's...

First 220 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
SirEdmund

764 Posts.

81

20/10/17

20:52

Post #: 28078263
Share

Originally posted by walkingeagle ↑

Grumpy - there's just one tiny thing missing in SWC's dream scenario, which is the fact that WTG's total net worth is something of the order of $100m. I didn't study advanced level maths but I make that about one tenth (10%, to make it easy for you, SWC) of the amount SGH is claiming in damages. As far as I can tell, SGH is saying it wants the whole purchase price it paid for QPP's PSD back (presumably plus interest and costs).

You see, QPP's directors fraudulently didn't predict what George Osborne would say in his autumn statement about 6 months after the deal completed. And they fraudulently didn't charge anything at all for the 53,000 NIHL claims SGH acquired. And - worst of all - QPP's fraudsters fraudulently didn't take Andy, John & Ken to one side when the due diligence was going on and say to them: "hey, do you not think you should be going about your due diligence work differently? It's a bit odd making so many public statements saying you're not bothered about what we managed to squeeze out of the PSD in profits (nothing) because you know a secret way to spring the loaded catapult because you're so much cleverer than anyone else".

And of course they fraudulently didn't email Andy, John & Ken in the months immediately after the deal completed saying: "do you not think it would be a good idea if one or more of you popped over to the UK to check in person how things are going? You seem remarkably confident, but we're hearing on the grapevine that after you changed the names of all the businesses that had been trading successfully for decades before A-H Terry came along to f*** things up - to something no-one in the UK had ever heard of (SGS) no-one knows what anyone does anymore, or how likely they are to be good at it even if they do".

Yes - it was definitely fraud. The well constructed and very frightening (to WTG's QCs) claim confirms this. But the maximum the wronged party would ever be able to get out of it is the total worth of the fraudster. There's no insurance I've ever heard of that pays out on fraud by the party taking out the policy.

It's a bit of a longshot but, knowing how much SGH's directors valued and were grateful to its loyal shareholders for their support over so many years, maybe the SGH directors' wives wrote a policy for the whole acquisition cost in trust for their benefit? It's definitely a possibility. Maybe the proceeds of sale of those properties were used to top it up with interest?

It would have been the right thing to do

imho/dyor

Expand

hopefully for wtg's sake their legal team don't test the court's patience with such gibberish and games about the fraudulent things they didn't do. this is actually about the fraudulent things they did do, and will turn on whether sgh can show they relied on it to the extent the transaction would not have happened. The demonstration of loss won't be an issue. Sgh's mistakes and dd are red herrings in this context and i think the wtg defence is doing exactly what you have done in your post.. not much at all in terms of addressing the actual issues

SGH Price at posting: 6.9¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
3 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

MMI

Metro Mining inks bauxite offtake contracts into 2026 with Chinese m

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

EQN

Equinox unveils some of "world's highest" antimony grades at Alturas, Canada

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

There are more pages in this discussion • 112 more messages in this thread...

First 220 Last

Add SGH (ASX) to my watchlist