All new articles or information will be first published here (N.B. most litigation updates will be moved to the Litigation Summary Section after a short period)

 

11th February 2018 
Shares in Whetstone Capital Group Plc began trading on the Britdaq platform on Friday. For more information see www.whetstone.capital and www.britdaq.com

 

In the meantime our legal team have prepared  Freedom of Information and Data Protection requests which are being served on various Government Departments and Private Organisations on Wednesday, as part of our continued investigation into the Campaign of Tortious Interference referred to on this website. 

 

 

5th February 2018 - Update
When I established this website over a year ago I was very clear about the motivation for doing so and what we were trying to achieve. The declared motivation and objectives were sincere and genuine, so it follows that all alternative explanations put forward by anyone else must necessarily be false. 

 

The extent of the damage caused to Worthington and the Injured Parties caused by the Campaign of Tortious Interference described in the Report on this website is now becoming crystal clear, to the extent that the very large financial impact can now be specifically quantified. In particular, the first in a series of acquisitions negotiated for Worthington is now generating net pre tax profits of $2m per MONTH from one seam of coal. The second seam is now coming into production and will, due to economies of scale, more than double net pre tax profitability. Certain of the Injured Parties (as defined in the TI Report) provided a seven figure sum of money to help bring these assets into production. This first operation is the first of several and, had Worthington not been undermined in the way that it was, production and profitability would be at an even more advanced stage. In addition to the coal assets, we had also negotiated very large oil, shale gas and limestone acquisitions amongst other deals. 

 

The claim for damages currently being prepared will exceed the £5 per share figure announced by Worthington in January 2015, being its estimate of the value to Worthington of the transactions that had been negotiated. Of course, the defendants in the case about to be launched will clearly not be able to pay the damages - which is another reason why establishing the new company and providing a mirror image for Worthington shareholders was necessary. However, at the end of the process, we will have a High Court judgement upholding the level of damages and proving a loss to Worthington and the Injured Parties of at least £5 per share. This will likely result in the bankruptcy of all those who have been actively involved in the campaign against Worthington and associated parties. We have already begun the process of identifying those involved. But more importantly, it takes a case like this - where the reality versus the false allegations is so extreme - for the law to be changed. And important changes to the law need to be made. 

 

There will be further news later this week. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4th January 2018

As readers will be aware, I have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that small Worthington shareholders receive a gifted mirror image shareholding in Whetstone Capital Group Plc. Despite having been very public about this for over a year, it seems that my commitment to the cause of the WRN shareholders is the reason why the Company is not now able to list on the NEX Growth Market.

 

It appears that, despite the fact that I can buy 29% of any listed company on any London market without restriction, my support of a solution for WRN shareholders is reason enough for NEX to disallow Whetstone.

 

I am, of course, considering my position and will comment further in due course.



 

 

 

3rd January 2018 - Focus on litigation 

I am now going to be pursuing various legal claims against the key principals behind the Campaign of Tortious Interference detailed in the report on this website. 

 

It normally takes direct personal experience of an injustice before someone is sufficiently motivated to do something about it. For the rest, as it doesn't affect them directly, most people tend to shrug their shoulders and generally couldn't care less. 

 

So, for example, the damage caused by lies propagated on the Internet is of no concern to most people because it doesn't affect them directly. Well, I have been directly affected and I am going to pursue those responsible. Having focused on looking after the interests of Worthington shareholders over the last twelve months, I decided to hold fire on litigation until time and resources permitted my intended legal actions to be vigorously pursued. And, as readers have  probably gathered by now, once I'm determined to do something – even if it takes 30 years – I carry on until it is accomplished. 

 

Separately I will also be taking a variety of action against various government departments. This includes, for example, HMRC. In particular I received a demand for £4.5m of tax which - having not earned £10m of income - I was unable to pay. I appealed to the tax Commissioners to have this demand set aside but the demand was upheld. I appealed to the High Court and was successful in overturning the Commissioners decision and having it referred to the third tier tax tribunal. Despite the claim being subjected to a tax tribunal, HMRC persisted in making a claim for £4.5m. I obtained an injunction against HMRC requiring them to desist, but they subsequently overturned that injunction on the medieval basis that it is not possible to injunct the Crown - I.e. not that my case wasn't overwhelming but that the Crown cannot be injuncted. That injustice (claiming for a debt that was credibly disputed) led directly to my bankruptcy. And, once bankrupt, I lost my locus to persist with the tax tribunal case and therefore my ability to contest the case which the High Court had granted me. That cannot be right on any fair basis. Once bankrupt I also lost my ability to defend  my directors disqualification case and had to represent myself, which is an impossibility if you are not personally expert in the civil law. This double injustice, despite the prosecution describing me as sincere and well meaning, led to a great deal of personal abuse from ill informed critics and which further fed a series of other injustices. To say I am seriously hacked off is an understatement. 

 

My motivation for what I am doing is spelt out on this website. My honourable intention couldn't be clearer (see Honest Design section) and sometimes it takes personal experience of injustice before there is a catalyst for anything to be done about structural unfairness. Make no mistake, I will be holding every false accusation or innuendo, from whatever source, to account. I now have the time and resources to do that. 

 

3rd January 2018 - Small Worthington Shareholders section updated. 

 

 

22 July 2017 – Insolvency Practitioners and the Second Legal Claim

Even the Communist Party of China eventually recognised that market forces and the profit motive were generally more efficient providers of goods and services than State control. There are some exceptions, like National Defence etc, where the State is the logical provider, but these are relatively few and far between. 

 

One service that is provided by the private sector, however, which does not currently perform efficiently is in the area of corporate insolvency, because the profit motive actually works against efficient service.

 

When a company enters insolvency with relatively small realisable assets which would only fund a few hours of insolvency fees, there is an incentive for the insolvency practitioner to realise sufficient assets quickly in order to pay their fees and complete the liquidation: the longer it goes on, beyond the available realisations, the more unpaid work they would end up doing. Generally speaking, therefore, insolvency practitioners don't take on cases where there are no realisable assets because they won't get paid, unless one or more creditors are prepared to fund them. However, where there are very substantial realisable assets, the profit motive ceases to act as a spur to efficiency. This is because the longer the insolvency and the more time they can “justify”, the more they can bill for their services and the more profit they actually make. So it is not in the commercial interests of insolvency practitioners for a large insolvency to be completed quickly and efficiently. In theory, insolvency practitioners are supposed to be officers of the court with an almost saintly sense of public service where their own commercial interests don't enter their minds at all, and where they don't bill the maximum they can per hour for as many hours as possible. In reality, of course, insolvency practitioners are flawed human beings like anybody else and therefore the temptation to maximise profit at the expense of creditors very often proves irresistible.  Theoretically creditors can challenge the extent of fees charged but this rarely happens – because creditors generally can't be bothered and the cost of doing so for individual creditors is often prohibitive; so insolvency practitioners are left writing their own cheques. The recent eye-watering fees being charged in relation to the Rangers liquidation is yet another example of this unfortunate, but currently legal, conflict of interest. 

 

Whilst there are some noble exceptions to this rapacious insolvency culture, the greed it engenders often leads to other unsavoury behaviour, and this is where we come to the Second Legal Claim. 

 

Prior to the purchase of Rangers Football Club in May 2011, MCR (insolvency and restructuring specialists) were retained by Mr Whyte to advise on all aspects of the transaction. Prior to the completion of the Rangers takeover MCR was sold to Duff and Phelps for a significant initial consideration but which also included a multi million pound deferred consideration. This deferred consideration specifically related to a major insolvency case from which the vendors of MCR were hoping and expecting to earn very substantial fees. Unbeknown to Mr Whyte that large insolvency case was none other than Rangers Football Club plc. So at the time that Mr Whyte was retaining them to advise on a successful restructuring of Rangers, they actually had a direct multi million pound incentive to ensure that Rangers went into liquidation/administration instead. Following the takeover of Rangers by Wavetower (the Whyte vehicle) the MCR team, now part of Duff and Phelps, were retained to negotiate with HMRC in order to agree a solution to the various tax problems faced by Rangers. However, instead of negotiating in good faith on behalf of Rangers/Wavetower, having been retained to do so, they actually advised HMRC to reject any restructuring proposals coming from Rangers and to appoint them as administrators instead. Following the administration of Rangers the MCR vendors were then able to, and did, receive the multi million deferred consideration they had planned. This unethical, and probably illegal, treachery is evidenced in an affidavit from HMRC. Similarly, the multi million pound deferred consideration incentive is confirmed by an affidavit submitted by the CEO of Duff and Phelps in the recent Scottish trial.

 

The losses and reputational damage resulting from this duplicity is the subject of the Second Legal Claim.

 

23 July 2017 

The activity of Duff and Phelps only came to light in affidavits relating to the Whyte trial. Clearly, had it been known at the time they were seeking to be appointed administrators, they would have been sacked on the spot. 

 

 

 

 

 

23 June 2017 - Worthington Claims

Further to my post of 16 June 2017, readers may be aware that one of Worthington's subsidiary companies has been granted an extension of time in which to submit a claim for the entire sum held on deposit by the liquidators of RFC 2012 plc. The defence to the claim was originally predicated on the proposition that the acquisition of RFC 2012 plc by the RFC Group Ltd ("Wavetower") and the assignment of the first charge debt from Lloyds bank to Wavetower was a fraudulent transaction and/or amounted to unlawful financial assistance. The recent not guilty verdicts on both these counts would appear to leave the road open for a successful claim, particularly as a verdict of unproven was also available to the Scottish jury. 

 

The Wavetower claim is in fact the smallest of the Rangers related claims and readers may have noticed that litigation specialists and funders have recently been appointed as directors of various Worthington subsidiaries in order to pursue these claims. 

 

The April 2013 share purchase agreement relating to Worthington's interest in Law Financial contained an insolvency clause so that, in the event of the insolvency of Worthington, ownership of Law Financial would revert to the vendors. The vendors of Law Financial are willing to waive this insolvency clause subject to the successful exit of Worthington from liquidation via CVA. Proposals in this respect are intended to be submitted to the liquidators within the next two weeks.

 

 

 

 

30th May 2017 - Worthington website

A website claiming to herald the relaunch of Worthington is a fake and illegal site and I would urge readers not to provide any information to those behind the site, which has already been reported to the appropriate authorities. Whilst it is hoped that Worthington will come out of liquidation, this site has nothing whatsoever to do with that effort. 

 

 

 

15th May 2017 – Court Order

I am pleased to confirm that at the High Court hearing in London this morning the Honourable Mr Justice King granted an injunction in the terms requested by the Claimants (Allan Biggar, Aidan Earley, Equity Media Partners Ltd, Greenland Mining Management Ltd) and made the following order. That:

 

  1. The Defendant refrain from re-uploading the webpage hosted at https://nunaminerals.wordpress.com/

 

  1. The Defendant refrain from making any publication that states that the Claimants are involved in fraud or criminality, or that their launch of Newco is fraudulent except other than by a report to a competent governmental authority/regulatory body and in any event without publication of the same on the Internet;

 

  1. Costs reserved

 

A full copy of the Court Order is attached below.

 

Any breach of this Order makes those in breach (including those who assist in its breach) liable to imprisonment or fined or to have their assets seized. 

 

I will be commenting on this case in more detail before Friday, but I can confirm that this Order affords to Newco the necessary protection to enable its launch to proceed as planned, and for long-suffering shareholders of Worthington to finally benefit from the acquisition program that had originally been planned for Worthington.

 

 

CourtOrder.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [1.6 MB]

 

 

 

10th May 2017 – Court Order

Allan Biggar and I attended the High Court in London yesterday in order to obtain an order for substituted service and an Interim Injunction in relation to the operator of the https://nunaminerals.wordpress.com/ website and various email accounts. The High Court granted our application for substituted service and allowed a reduced notice period for an on notice Interim Injunction. The Judge felt that the Defendant(s) should have the opportunity to attend Court prior to any Interim Injunction being granted as there were insufficient compelling reasons for an ex parte Injunction to be granted. Consequently the on notice Injunction Hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London, WC2A 2LL at or after 10am on Monday 15th May 2017.

 

We would have preferred to have obtained the Injunction yesterday so that the Newco Website could be launched on Friday. However, it now makes sense to launch the website on Friday 19th May 2017.

 

As stated in my post of 3rd May 2017, the multi million pound claim in relation to the Tortious Interference described in the report on this website will take place following the conclusion of the case now being heard in Scotland. Consequently the current action now being taken against one or more of the perpetrators of that campaign (see bundle below) is a non money claim designed to prohibit the campaign from continuing, albeit we will be pursuing him/her/they for our legal costs.

 

 

InjunctionNunaWP.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [3.6 MB]

 

6th March 2017 - Congratulations to Tom Winnifrith 

It would be churlish of me not to pay appropriate recognition to Tom Winnifrith for his recent valiant efforts in trying to restrain himself from calling as many companies and individuals as he possibly can fraudsters, referring to them instead as Dogs and Bastards, etc. For a fraud enthusiast like Tom (he might have been a UFO enthusiast in other circumstances), who struggles not to call his local checkout girl a fraudster, and who normally spends most of his time rereading his telephone directory to double check he has accused everyone in it of fraud, this is real progress. So well done, Tom, I'm impressed. 

 

However, in an area where Tom hasn't made much progress, I couldn't help noticing Mr Winnifrith's rather fantastic interpretation of recent communications with the Official Receiver. Apparently, the O.R. is now going to be a witness in the legal action that I am bringing against Tom (I wonder if the O.R. knows that?). And in the parallel universe run by Tom, where reality is whatever Tom says it is, the Official Receiver has already donned his black hat and pronounced a sentence of death on anyone connected with Worthington. But I'm not going to criticise Tom for his sense of imagination here, if Tom can continue to control his urge to call everyone he meets a fraudster then I accept that something has to take up the slack. For Mr Winnifrith it is imagining the death of his enemies, for someone else it might be eating chocolates. 

 

I note that Tom is also rather hopeful that if he spends his waking hours trawling through 52 companies that he says I was associated with, he may find something that I don't know myself. Bizarre as it may seem to Tom, I brought this first action knowing full well my own history. I have never claimed to have an unblemished record; this first case is about whether or not it is right for somebody to invent lies in the destructive way that Mr Winnifrith does. 

 

There is therefore nothing Mr Winnifrith can discover that I don't know about already; I went into this action with my eyes very wide open knowing full well what to expect from Mr Winnifrith. As I have mentioned in a previous post, far from being the wrong person to hold Mr Winnifrith to account, I'm precisely the right person because I am relatively impervious to Mr Winnifrith's malevolent approach. For anyone with an impeccable reputation, to even be associated with holding Mr Winnifrith to account, would be to invite intensified abuse and false accusations from him, which would damage the Claimant's profile on the internet even further. In addition, not many people are prepared to be subject to the abusive insults that are Mr Winnifrith's speciality. I don't need to sully this website by repeating them here, but anyone having a glance at Mr Winnifrith's writing will know precisely what I'm talking about.

 

This first action is therefore also a pathfinder to prepare the way for actions by multiple parties. There will be many developments over the coming days which Mr Winnifrith may think is the "big surprise" I have referred to but, make no mistake, there will be no room for doubt when it takes place. 

 

Lastly, it is clear I know a lot more about the rules concerning shadow directorships than Mr Winnifrith does; but, for now, I'll let him waste some more time demonstrating how little he understands the subject. 

 

 

 

1st March 2017 - Public Interest
Mr Winnifrith makes much of his spurious claim that he acts in the public interest. The cases that are being brought against him will highlight that it is not in the public interest to steal emails and publish them, nor is it in the public interest to destroy the whole concept of rehabilitation by inventing lies about anyone who happens to have a long spent conviction, and it is certainly not in the public interest to run a protection racket. If the Court were to rule that it is in the public interest to do these things then, literally, God help us all. 

 

Mr Winnifrith has tried to shift the debate from the fact that he is a proven and highly destructive liar - who played a central and highly active role in trying to destroy Worthington - to the rather quaint idea that I was a shadow director and it was really me who was responsible for the problems faced by Worthington instead. Brilliant.

 

As regards surprises, the only surprise unveiled by Mr Winnifrith yesterday was that there was a government agency that he hadn't already contacted; I would have thought he would have set up a group email by now. 

 

That said, unfortunately for Mr Winnifrith, I do have a surprise for him but my surprises are on an altogether bigger scale. 

 

I am not being vindictive, readers will know that I have done everything fair and reasonable to avoid having to take the steps that are being taken, and will be taken, to hold Mr Winnifrith properly to account. And he knows that too.

 

27th February 2017 - First Claim Launched (a day earlier than planned)

See Litigation Summary Section

 

26th February 2017 - Strange Appearances
One of the allegations made in the Tortious Interference Report on this website is that Mr Winnifrith is engaged in blackmail and racketeering. Sharp eyed readers may have noticed that there are significant numbers of individuals and companies who:

 

1. Have been targeted by Mr Winnifrith for false and destructive reporting 
2. Have subsequently taken space at his Investor Show, or appeared as a guest speaker, and 
3. Where the attacks have ceased or have been materially reduced. 

 

We have been conducting our own investigation into this curious anomaly and would invite Readers to submit their own list of companies or individuals where this odd phenomenon has taken place. 

 

Which sort of individual or company, having been on the receiving end of Mr Winnifrith's malicious falsehoods, would then voluntarily choose to pay to take space at his Investor Show? All very strange. 

 

There is a sub category that we are interested in as well - those companies who have taken space at a rival investor show (and so not had the "benefit" of appearing at Mr Winnifrith's Investor Show), and been subject to concerted attacks by Winnifrith. 

 

This is all very fascinating. 

 

28th January 2017 - Reckless Tom

This website has already highlighted and catalogued a whole series of false, reckless and damaging statements made by Mr Winnifrith and about which I have direct personal knowledge (see 28th December 2016 post below); I have also highlighted Mr Winnifrith's remarkable ability to brazenly criticise others when his own failings match and often greatly exceed those he targets (see here). I have also highlighted the inevitable and hugely damaging effects that his malignant influence has on fledgling companies (see homepage and 20th and 21st December 2016 posts). Therefore, having witnessed the extent of his malicious, destructive and unjust "news" first hand, I decided to review in detail his commentary on other companies on the basis that "grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles". In other words, having been singularly unable to report any of the Worthington story in an honest, fair-minded and objective way, it obviously follows that Mr Winnifrith would be equally unable to tell the truth about other companies he targeted. I have therefore decided to begin a series of articles highlighting his dishonest and hugely damaging attacks on some of these other companies. 

 

Almost all of the companies that Mr Winnifrith targets are early stage, fledgling companies that have the exceptionally difficult task of building a new business from scratch, often with a new product, in highly competitive or emerging markets with limited resources. To have any prospect of success, these companies require the support, goodwill and confidence of their backers and business associates. That goodwill and support is a very precious and fragile necessity for these smaller companies in particular. Indeed even large banks and financial institutions require the trust and confidence of their customers and business partners to avoid a run on deposits and an ensuing liquidity crash. Smaller companies don't have the Bank of England to bail them out through the printing of cash or quantitative easing and are particularly vulnerable to the unlawful and unregulated activities of Mr Winnifrith - because they are often pre revenue, pioneering companies with much of the business plan, market or product as yet unproven. They are therefore uniquely susceptible to a campaign of vicious, sustained, malicious libel orchestrated by Mr Winnifrith designed to destroy all confidence in the fledgling company so that the company is catastrophically undermined. Mr Winnifrith can then claim "vindication" having himself been the cause of the failure in the first place. It is far easier to destroy a fledgling company than it is to build it, or to drive a smaller company share price down than to tip a good long-term investment (I haven't analysed Mr Winnifrith's unregulated share tipping in detail, but I suspect that his basket of long term buy recommendations are materially worse than his  "guaranteed" success from recommending investors sell shares in those companies that he targets for his unlawful campaigns and where known associates of his are often short).

 

African Potash (“African”) (Part 1)

 

The first series of articles I decided to review (relating to companies in which I have no interest) and which are written by Mr Winnifrith, concern African Potash. 

 

A classic theme of Mr Winnifrith's campaigns is to label an entire company a fraud: that is, to claim that the whole company and everyone in it is engaged in a concerted and deliberate attempt to defraud investors for personal gain and that the company is a criminal enterprise.  That is the plain meaning of Mr Winnifrith stating that "African Potash is a fraud". So Mr Winnifrith, a failed politician, failed businessman, award winning hypocrite, consistent and deliberate liar and pseudo journalist reckons that he is qualified in his sole, chronically inept, judgment to decide - without any weighing of evidence by a properly constituted jury - to proclaim a whole company a fraud? One has to wonder whether his behaviour is that of an imbecile or a sociopath. And a sociopath, don't forget, who publicly takes pleasure in the demise of those he targets. Most of us know our own failings - I certainly know mine - but it is painfully clear Mr Winnifrith is not acquainted with his, or he would be too shame faced to consider, let alone make a career out of, criticising others in this way. 

 

By labelling African Potash a fraud Mr Winnifrith is effectively saying that the entire Board of Directors, including Peter Hain (former MP and Cabinet Minister), Mark Simmonds (former MP and senior consultant to Kroll Associates, the worldwide investigators) and Elias Pungong (partner at Ernst and Young) are all either engaged, or complicit, in a criminal enterprise. He is not saying that heads should roll but that the entire company is a fraud whose whole essence is to defraud investors, that there is no plan to build a lawful business and it is designed instead to defraud investors for.....for what exactly Mr Winnifrith? 

 

The purpose of the series of articles that I am publishing regarding Mr Winnifrith's commentary on various companies that he targets, is not to pass judgement on whether or not a company is good or bad, or whether it is likely to be a commercial success or not, it is to identify and expose obviously false and highly damaging reporting by Mr Winnifrith. Along the way, a pattern of behaviour by Mr Winnifrith and ShareProphets is also emerging – but I will write separately about that in due course.

 

On 1st December 2015, African Potash announced a transaction with Beryl Holdings which, on the face of it, had the potential to generate significant revenues for African Potash with any payment being linked only to success. That looked like a relatively prudent deal structure. No income, no payment. 

 

On 6th January 2016, African Potash announced a collaboration with COMESA. To have negotiated such an arrangement with what amounts to Africa's answer to the European Economic Area would have taken a great deal of time and effort to put in place. Clearly the Directors of African Potash thought they were trying to build a viable and worthwhile business, but Mr Winnifrith would like them to know that they were actually, unbeknown to them, building a fraud. 

 

On 23 August 2016, Mr Winnifrith published a confidential agreement which he claimed showed a £600,000 "bung" paid by African Potash to "Beryl's boss Neverl Kambesha" in relation to the 1st December 2015 deal. This was labelled by Winnifrith as "explosive evidence" that African Potash and their advisers had deliberately colluded to mislead investors in a placing by not mentioning it.  

 

Mr Winnifrith's fraud twitch, which he appeared to have under some minor degree of control for a short period up to that point, then went into complete spasm. He wrote to the A-Z of regulators, including his local neighbourhood watch, to tell them what absolute rotters/fraudsters everyone associated with African Potash were. And how everyone should go to jail, including sons and daughters of the guilty, and anyone who has ever been vicariously associated with the African Potash coven. (Steady Tom, or even writing about it might make you unclean). 

 

So let's take a look at that alleged "bung". 

 

Mr Winnifrith claims that a crucial clause of the agreement (1.6.5) was not mentioned in the RNS. That clause is as follows:


"Beryl has a number of associated and subsidiary companies involved in agriculture, commodities and mining in Africa and will select with AFPO's agreement [my emphasis] another one of its associated or related companies suitable for a London Stock Exchange IPO, RTO or similar transaction or pre IPO Investment and AFPO will either introduce third party funding or invest itself GBP£600,000 for equity or quasi equity to enable this transaction or other necessary costs to be met".

 

And Mr Winnifrith states that 

 

"In other words African was obliged to come up with £600,000 or ensure that cash was sent to a company wholly owned by Beryl's boss Neverl Kambesha whatever sales were generated by this deal. Punters thought this deal came at no cost to African just upside potential" 

 

and that

 

"Up until now the worst we could accuse Cleverley of was in lying in an RNS on January 6 2016 to get the January 12 bailout placing away - see HERE. But this is far worse" 

 

So Mr Winnifrith says that it was this clause that convinced him that African Potash was a fraud and that lyin' Tom (to coin a phrase) was now convinced that Chris Cleverley and everyone connected with African Potash was instead a fraud. 

 

Well: Imbecile or Sociopath, Tom, which is it? 

 

It is clear that anyone associated in any way with business would know exactly what that clause means. It means exactly what it says. Having made an agreement with Beryl it became clear that Beryl had other businesses that could be floated in London. African Potash wanted to have the potential to be involved in assisting with that floatation. African would need to agree that the proposed floatation was up to standard, but if it was it would like to either invest directly or arrange the funding. That clause is not in any way an obligation to pay, or even a right to pay, but an understanding of a way forward and an expression of interest. Unless African agreed with the quality or suitability of the float there would be no float and no payment. 

 

If African had been obliged to mention it, it would actually have been seen as another potential source of profit. African would have been within their rights to have said something along the lines of “Furthermore we have come to a broad understanding with Beryl that, subject to African being satisfied with the quality or suitability of the business, African will assist Beryl float one or more of Beryl’s subsidiaries on AiM. It is our hope that this will generate additional income for African in due course, both by way of fees for advising on the prospective float and also by assisting with a £600,000 fund raise. Again, subject to being satisfied with the quality of the subsidiary, African may itself choose to subscribe for all or part of the intended £600,000 fund raise”

 

Is Mr Winnifrith surprised that he can't find the £600,000 bung in the accounts (as he searched empty handed on 4th January 2017)? Only an imbecile would conclude that that clause represented a bung in the first place. Is Reckless Tom going to apologise for labelling African Potash a fraud on that basis ("Up until now the worst we could accuse Cleverley of was in lying in an RNS on January 6 2016 to get the January 12 bailout placing away - see HERE. But this is far worse"). His targeting of African Potash in this dishonest and destructive way undermined the company by littering the internet with allegations of fraud, driving away investment and making Nomads unwilling to act. When it comes to whom to sue, the parties he is currently trying to persuade to sue Cantor and/or the Directors of African Potash would be better advised to turns their guns on Mr Winnifrith instead.

 

Fledgling companies need to be protected from this kind of behaviour and any website engaged in tipping UK shares should be regulated by the FCA. What is the point, you might ask, of newspapers or brokers complying with certain reasonable standards if a loose cannon can simply set up in business and drive a coach and horses through the entire regulatory framework? Rogue websites, like ShareProphets, should either comply with good practice and be accountable to the FCA or be closed down. 

 

Mr Winnifrith likes to flatter himself that he plays a worthwhile role in AiM regulation: that Reckless Tom can do a job that the regulators, having to deal in truth, can't do. What would happen if ShareProphets is closed down? Pretty much what happened before it arrived on the scene. If a company fails to deliver, the share price falls, investors buy at lower prices or shun the company altogether. The market performs this role in a gradual and measured way. Investors can make up their own minds at each stage of the company's progress or lack of progress. Trying to cause precipitous collapses or the resignation of Nomads and the suspension of share trading, as Mr Winnifrith does, artificially distorts the market and also prevents entrepreneurs from being able to learn on the job. An enthusiastic entrepreneur confident that he has just signed a great deal, only to find that dealing in Africa is less reliable than he thought will be more wary next time, if there is a next time, chastened by the market reaction. Three years later he may have learnt enough to make a success of the venture. Simply trying to destroy fledgling companies, in the way that Mr Winnifrith does, serves no useful purpose and destroys the livelihoods of investors and employees in the companies he targets. He should be regulated and if he isn't regulated, he should be closed down. It is past time that this particular rogue trader was put out of business. 

 

 

 

 

 

24th January - Birthday Present

My thanks to Tom Winnifrith today for helping me to celebrate my 50th birthday. I resisted the temptation to point out to him yesterday that he is, as usual, wrong regarding his central assertions. I am of course not bankrupt and was discharged after just one year. I have also been working on a detailed analysis of various similarly fake news stories he has published over the years, and the resulting damage he has caused to countless other companies. The first of a series of articles on these cases will be published this week. This latest fake news story and alll the other instances where his fake news causes real damage underlines just why Mr Winnifrith and Shareprophets need to be put out of business. That case has been given added weight by his latest own goal. 

 

6th January 2017 - Who better to bring action against Winnifrith? 

Mr Winnifrith has set great store by the idea that, because I pleaded guilty to and was sent to prison 25 years ago for an offence not involving dishonesty, and that I have also been bankrupt and am currently disqualified as a director (though also currently permitted to be a director by the same Court), whatever he says is right and whatever I say is wrong. 

 

No doubt when Mr Winnifrith first began his assault on Worthington, he must have assumed it was a soft target: the false but perceived Craig Whyte connection (and Whyte's unrelated criminal charges in relation to Rangers) and my own, unconnected, failings more or less gave him license to say anything he wanted. And he did. What he will discover is that conflating entirely unrelated matters is a very unwise thing to do; and he will also discover that the truth exposes and destroys all falsehood, no matter that casual lies can throw dust in the air for a short period. 

 

Therefore when the actions that are being brought against Mr Winnifrith by me, and those I support, are eventually successful - despite this apparently unpromising backdrop - it will be a spur for anyone else who has a justified grievance against Winnifrith to step forward. After all, if Winnifrith can lose to "a convicted criminal, multiple bankrupt and banned director", what hope has he against anyone else?

 

Incidentally, in relation to the charges that I pleaded guilty to 25 years ago, the defence against the charges was that the omission was both honest and excusable. It was accepted by all parties, including the Judge and prosecution, that the omission was honest but I pleaded guilty to the inadequate accounting being inexcusable. In hindsight, bearing in mind that these events took place between the ages of only 18 and 21, when most teenagers are doing what most teenagers do, and that I wasn't involved at all in the accounting function, I think it was in fact excusable and so I should perhaps not have pleaded guilty. But that is another story…

 

6th January 2017 - A question of Moral Authority 

When considering lecturing others about any particular issue, it is advisable to establish whether one has the appropriate moral authority to do so. For example a married man, engaged in multiple illicit affairs, would not appear the obvious choice to criticise others for lack of marital fidelity. 

 

Similarly, if there is a God (and I obviously believe there is), then - unless he has lived as a man, subjected to the same temptations and problems as men - he would have no moral authority to judge men. Indeed Christ says that he has been given authority to Judge because he is the Son of Man.(John 5:27). Without such moral authority, it would be possible to say to any so called god, trying to condemn men "you don't know what it's like to suffer pain and suffering and temptation and misery. There you are, sitting in your ivory tower, untouched by grief and poverty and despair, and yet you presume to judge me?". Only a God who had suffered everything that we suffer, and yet not sinned, has the moral authority to Judge mankind. 

 

In my own case, I did not feel that I would have the moral authority to be involved in public evangelism, whilst I had creditors who could rightly claim that I owed them money or that I had in some way let them down financially. Critics could understandably argue "that's all well and good, but what about all these people he owes money to". Therefore my objective to repay creditors, that I no longer have any legal obligation to reimburse - and anyone else who could justifiably claim that I had lost them money - was designed to remove that stumbling block. In other words, by paying several million pounds to these former creditors, I will have bought the right to speak with moral authority. Consequently, whilst people may disagree with the message that I intend to preach, they will at least have to acknowledge that I genuinely believe it myself.

 

Readers will be aware that I had intended to quietly achieve my objectives, publish my book, and then commence full-time evangelism without any "song and dance" about it. However, the action of Winnifrith and others became itself an obstacle to my achieving this near 30 year objective. For that reason only, it became necessary to talk publicly about what I am actually trying to achieve. And, of course, with Worthington poised to complete its acquisition program, and my former creditors interests protected through the Olympus Trading holding, that objective was very close to completion. I suppose the late twist in the tale, being subjected to the unlawful and vicious campaign referred to in the Tortious Interference Report, adds to dramatic effect; but then every good book needs a genuine villain, and Mr Winnifrith and co are performing that role with genuine aplomb. Having said that, over the last 28 years I have witnessed my fair share of heroes and villains, and Mr Winnifrith has at least contributed to an exciting final chapter. Fortunately, despite best endeavours, he and others will not be able to prevent the acquisition programme completing (through the new vehicle) and the objective ultimately being achieved. 

 

However, with respect to appropriate moral authority, if Mr Winnifrith had an ounce of self awareness, he would realise that his own failings conclusively disqualify him from any role involved in the criticism and condemnation of others.  Perhaps one day that truth will break into his conscience. 

 

6th January 2017 - Biggest Hypocrite in London Award (update). 

Flushed with success after collecting his award on New Year's Eve, Mr Winnifrith has wasted no time in putting down a marker for the coveted prize in 2017. By sneakily arranging his financial affairs so that - to use his own words - his creditors "won't get a cent" when the inevitable Court Order to pay damages finally arrives, Mr Winnifrith has ensured that he can enjoy the freedom to libel all comers with unrestrained abandon; and, whatever else happens, his creditors will have more success finding gold at the end of the rainbow than cash from Mr Winnifrith. Having put in place a scheme to rob his creditors in this way, close watchers of Winnifrith can probably guess what happens next? Naturally, he has decided to criticise the financial arrangements of others. 

 

For those interested in finding out the truth about Mr Winnifrith's imaginative claim that "Mr and Mrs Earley live in a £3m house whilst bankrupt", see below. But for everyone else, why not just savour the smooth, refined, effortless, style of our 2016 Award Winner as he shows yet again why - when it comes to hypocrisy - Mr Winnifrith is simply a Giant, casually flicking his competitors out of the way.

 

6th January 2017 - Mr Winnifrith's comments on my family home

Having arranged his financial affairs in such a way that he can libel anyone he attacks with impunity, so that his creditors "won't get a cent", Mr Winnifrith no doubt assumes that everybody else should arrange their finances in the same way that he does. 

 

In contrast, in 1991, my wife and I bought a house in Beverley Way, New Malden for £129,500. By December 2003, I had also generated almost £1 million cash from stock market trading and investment. Sitting in Paris with my wife, around Christmas 2003, I was very happy, relaxed and peaceful. I had earned enough money to live a contented life, and the temptation was to ignore my promise to repay former creditors and enjoy a tranquil life instead. However, I decided to keep my promise and go ahead with a plan to purchase a private company, using my cash, with the intention to float that company on the market at a value exceeding the amount I owed to former creditors. By January 2005, we sold our home in Beverley Way because we needed a bigger house for our family. The Beverley Way property had increased substantially in value, and we were able to take the equity out of that house to put down as a deposit on our current property. Our current property has also substantially increased in value and yet we have used all the equity in it to support the effort to repay my former creditors. All the difficulties - the upset and the trauma that has caused - and the long suffering support of my wife and family in this endeavour forms part of my book. Suffice to say, however, that the rather grubby effort by Mr Winnifrith to put his assets beyond the reach of his creditors is the polar opposite of what we have done. 



 

 

New Years Eve 2016 - Tom Winnifrith wins major Award

 

There are awards for a multitude of achievements in the field of human endeavour: The Oscars, the Nobel Peace Prize, Sports Personality of the Year, the Albert Einstein Award, etc. But unfortunately, until now, there has been no award for the Biggest Hypocrite in London. I considered asking for nominations from readers but swiftly concluded it was a futile exercise: there can be only one winner, a Titan who stands so head and shoulders above the rest that everyone else can merely quake beneath the great man's shadow. For every one amateurish effort from a mere mortal, Winnifrith can point to ten, 24 karat, solid gold, in your face, hole in one, smashes. Mr Winnifrith is a one off, a legend, where the only right response is to simply applaud him onto the stage, to receive possibly the most deserved award of any likely to be given in 2016 (and probably for many years to come). 

 

Here are just some of Mr Winnifrith's masterstrokes: 

 

Attacking many companies for allegedly misleading investors, and then proceeding to lie to donors (not investors, donors) when raising money himself. 

 

Claiming to believe ardently in free speech, but quickly deleting any post that might shed light on the murky genesis of ShareProphets. 

 

Claiming to have been libelled whilst he himself manages double shifts in a state of the art libel factory. 

 

Claiming to be liberal minded, but being kicked out of the Liberal Party for helping to produce Racist material that even the BNP found offensive.

 

Accusing companies of lying, whilst making a career for himself out of lying on a blockbusting scale. 

 

Criticising directors when his own performance, whilst a director of Rivington, was strikingly worse than many of those he attacks. 

 

But possibly the coup de grace, the piece de resistance, the magnum opus of the great man is his use of guilt by association. 

 

Mr Winnifrith regularly tries to add weight to his false allegations of fraud against smaller companies by identifying any director, officer, substantial shareholder or adviser who may have had failings in the past to allege that the targeted company must therefore, currently, be engaged in fraud - regardless of whether or not the previous failing involved dishonesty. 

 

So, who does Mr Winnifrith choose as a backer and investor for ShareProphets? Who do you think the Grand Master would choose to be involved with a share tipping website, focused in large part in driving down the share prices of smaller companies? None other than Mr Christopher Potts, of course. A man found guilty of distorting markets and therefore, by Mr Winnifrith's definition, defrauding smaller investors. A man who ran naked short positions of more than 250% of the issued share capital of Room Service, whilst a market maker. A man found guilty of market abuse. How could I have missed it? Perhaps it's the purity of the hypocrisy, the faultless, matchless perfection. Whatever the reason, I can do nothing but gaze in dumbstruck wonder. 

 

I have nothing whatsoever against Potts and hope he is indeed a reformed character and is now - alone amongst men - perfectly virtuous. But for sheer, exquisite, championship winning hypocrisy, Mr Winnifrith serves up a blistering ACE. 

 

Even then, so natural is he as a performer, as Winnifrith takes his bow in front of the Royal Box at Centre Court and gives his victory speech to the awestruck crowd, he delights them with another, mere aside. He manages to slip into in his speech that he doesn't believe in rehabilitation - unless that person happens to be giving him cash. 

 

Truly, we are in the presence of greatness; Mr Winnifrith we salute you!

 

 

30th December 2016 - Thought for the day

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt

 

I would like to express my sincere thanks to all those who have sent me messages of support; it would seem that Mr Winnifrith has upset a large number of people. I have also been urged by several people to set up a donations facility on the website, so that they can assist with legal costs in the multiple legal actions being prepared against Mr Winnifrith and ShareProphets. I have therefore set up a facility as requested and anyone wishing to donate can do so publicly or anonymously at their option.  

 

In the event that money is received it will only be used to pay legal costs where Mr Winnifrith and/or ShareProphets is a defendant. In addition to actions referred to in the Tortious Interference Report and elsewhere on this website in relation to Mr Winnifrith, we will also be willing to consider helping anyone else who has a legitimate grievance against him. 

 

No money will be drawn down from gofundme except against solicitor invoices that are first published on this website, and which relate specially to action against Mr Winnifrith or ShareProphets. 

 

The name of the campaign is simply "Stop Winnifrith" and can be found here

 

https://www.gofundme.com/stop-winnifrith?ssid=856060542&pos=1

 

29th December 2016 - My disqualification

I have noticed various comments about my disqualification which could benefit from some factual input.

 

Very simply, I had put in place a solvent restructuring of a company in order that, following the restructuring, creditors would be paid in full - without the proceeds being eaten up by an insolvency practitioner (which, anyone who has had any dealings with insolvency practitioners will know, often leads to large fees and little left for creditors). The idea was to realise its investments in an orderly way over twelve months. What could not have been seen at the time was that the Global Financial Crash would take place during the twelve month period and cause the market and liquidity in smaller company shares to virtually disappear, resulting in the inability of the restructuring to be completed successfully. At the time of the disqualification hearing, I could not afford representation, and therefore had to represent myself (never a good place to be). Nonetheless the chief finding was that, even though the intentions were honourable, the restructuring increased the risk to creditors. I personally believe that was using the benefit of hindsight, but that was the finding. As readers will be aware, there was no suggestion of dishonesty and I was described as "sincere and well meaning", and a "clear and cogent witness" - by opposition counsel and the Registrar. 

 

29th December 2016 – What the Winnifrith case is actually about

I've listened to Mr Winnifrith’s factually light podcast today and I will respond in more detail in due course. In the meantime, in answer to his suggestion that I am trying to close down bearish comment that is, again - along with his account of what took place in Court - simply untrue. Markets have always had bear comment and always will have bear comment; the markets worked perfectly well before Mr Winnifrith and his libel factory arrived on the scene, and will do so again when he leaves. Very simply, when companies fail to deliver on their promises, the share price falls because investors grow sceptical and decide to exit. Commentators can point to lack of cash generation, lack of delivery against business plan etc, and all the multitude of other reasonable criticisms that they may have, and bears can go short as much as they like. The main specific objection I have is that it is wholly wrong for Mr Winnifrith to denounce entire companies as frauds, on his hypocritical and self appointed say so, in order to destroy the business. This distorted and dishonest coverage of companies - whilst trying himself to be unaccountable to the FCA (whilst still offering investment advice) or to be subject to any recognised journalistic code of ethics - is undoubtedly destabilising the market. If Mr Winnifrith thinks that a company can just carry on regardless, as though nothing has happened, when his unilateral allegations of fraud litter the intent and starve the target company of capital, then he is either telling yet another lie or he is utterly deluded.

 

My objective is indeed to close down ShareProphets and, on the basis that he has no assets, to seek to make Mr Winnifrith bankrupt so that he can never again cause the misery and pain that he has caused to so many innocent parties. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I fully expected to be subject to an intensified campaign of abuse when holding Mr Winnifrith to account, and I expect that to continue.

 

29th December 2016 – Recent Rescission Application

Another question that Mr Winnifrith raises in his podcast is the idea that the position of Worthington has in any way changed vis its last announcement by virtue of a hearing that took place recently. To be clear, the views on this website are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Worthington or its Directors. However, I happen to know what that hearing was about because the application to rescind the winding up order, was made by the debenture holder of Worthington (Renatus Capital Ltd, my brother’s company) and had to be made within five business days of the winding up order being granted. This was not Worthington's application for a Judicial Review, which was the subject of the recent announcement, but a separate application. By making the application for rescission within five business days of the winding up order, the debenture holder achieved two things: firstly, should Worthington wish to make an urgent application for a Judicial Review, it can now do so more easily - if the rescission had been granted it would be more difficult to argue that it needed to be done on an urgent basis. Secondly, if the Judicial Review permission is granted Worthington, or the debenture holder, could apply for leave to rescind again out of time - but will be able to point out that application was originally made within the five day window. One of the many problems with Mr Winnifrith is he likes to state as facts things that he knows virtually nothing about. What the directors of Worthington decide to do in relation to these matters is not the subject of this website and is not for me to second guess.

 

Incidentally, had I wanted to be a director of Worthington or thought that I was likely to be involved in the management of Worthington, and been invited to be a director and wanted to take up such a role, I could have applied for permission to be a director of Worthington in the same way that I did for one of its subsidiaries. The Court does not give permission to be a director to individuals that it considers to be dishonest. But the facts are that I am not involved in the management of Worthington and Doug Ware was very clear about that. Will I be involved as a director of the new company? Maybe: if only so that I can't be accused of being a shadow director.

 

28th December 2016 - poor Mr Winnifrith 

As part of Mr Winnifrith's assault on fledgling, vulnerable, early-stage companies, he accuses them of lying and making misleading statements. He says that he only targets companies that are not generating cash - which fledgling companies, by their very nature, do not do. Having identified what he considers to be statements that, in his sole opinion, are not precisely accurate (making no allowance for human error), he then labels the entire fledgling company a fraud in order to drive away investment and ensure that the company does in fact fail (causing substantial loss and misery to employees and smaller shareholders), so that he can then claim that his original false claims were in fact true. 

 

When labelling fledgling companies frauds, Mr Winnifrith claims that he is exercising his right to free speech which is an important civil liberty. However one of the key cornerstones of English civil liberty, is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, in a court of law tried by one's peers. Mr Winnifrith's deliberate labelling of parties, who are currently innocent, as fraudsters in this way is not "freedom of speech", but an attack on that central principle. 

 

Who is this person who makes allegations of fraud on an industrial scale? You would have thought, perhaps, that somebody who sets himself up in judgement over others would have to be - at the very least - someone who has a track record of only telling the truth? Someone who doesn't himself have a track record of making misleading statements? Someone who isn't a serial liar? 

 

When considering Mr Winnifrith, it becomes obvious that he has said the following things which would appear to thoroughly disqualify him from such a role. The list relates only to what I know about personally; but, if you are a shareholder or employee in any of the other companies targeted by him, it is fair to say that - if he can say so many things that he knows to be untrue about one company or situation - it is inconceivable that he isn't also telling at least some lies about your company as well:

 

When trying to raise funds for his defence in relation to the first legal action that I brought against him, Mr Winnifrith raised money from donors on the basis that this was a libel action (see 8th March 2015 post) when in fact, as he well knew, this was an action to prevent him publishing stolen emails. Is Mr Winnifrith going to admit that he deliberately misrepresented the "investment case"? 

He also stated in relation to that first legal case, that he was there to defend pensioners. That was another lie: the Trustee in control of the pension fund was appointed by the Government. 

 

He claimed to have "won" in Court whilst failing to disclose that he had reached a private agreement to stop calling Worthington a fraud - and for all his posts to become like "internet chip paper" - whilst allowing his subscribers to think that he had not entered into such an arrangement. And if he agreed not to call Worthington a fraud, if he really thought Worthington was a fraud, that would suggest that his campaign "to expose frauds" is a sham and/or he knew full well that he would lose at trial. 

 

Mr Winnifrith states that I was convicted of corporate theft. That is a blatant lie

 

Mr Winnifrith states that I was interviewed under caution several times in relation to Rangers. That is another lie.

 

Mr Winnifrith states that Craig Whyte is behind Worthington, that is another lie. 

 

The list of Winnifrith lies goes on and on and on and on. 

 

He has stated that Companies House have taken no action to strike off Worthington because they are being 'lent on' by other agencies. I am a director of Sevco 5088 Ltd and happen to know the current status with Companies House, and Mr Winnifrith's account is similarly untrue. He would also have you believe that the SFO are investigating. What he means is that he has given them a file, rings them every ten minutes and asks whether they have read it. And would they please, please, pretty please do so. It may surprise Mr Winnifrith, but government agencies have to deal in truth; so it is not those who have worked as hard as possible to protect shareholders and pensioners who will have any issue with the law, but those who have spent the same amount of effort trying to destroy vulnerable companies in the way that Mr Winnifrith has.

 

I have not wanted to be involved in a confrontational campaign to close ShareProphets: indeed, I have done everything reasonably fair and possible to avoid such an event; not least because I and colleagues have wanted to concentrate on delivering value for Worthington shareholders. However, now that it has become necessary to proceed down this route, this campaign will not stop until either Mr Winnifrith is personally bankrupt (so that he cannot resurrect any similar unlawful campaign) and/or ShareProphets is closed down so that it is no longer a blight on the London Market: there will be no more deals with Mr Winnifrith because his word, contrary to his claim, is - as any independent observer will agree - completely worthless. There will be more details on this campaign tomorrow. 

 

On a personal level, I am very aware of my own personal failings – indeed you will be able to read about those failings in detail in my forthcoming book, which is predominantly about the grace of God. However, what is difficult to stomach, is the notion that a deeply flawed and ocean going hypocrite should, as Mr Winnifrith does, set himself up as a judge over all. That cannot be allowed to continue and this campaign will not stop until Mr Winnifrith is permanently discredited. 

 

A very Happy New Year to men of goodwill. 

 

 

28th December 2016 - Litigation Summary section updated

I will also be posting again later today

 

21 December 2016 - Should a whole company be destroyed or should an individual resign?

Mr Winnifrith states in one of his articles today that he only targets bad companies that don't generate cash. It may surprise him, but most early stage companies don't generate cash; that is why they are vulnerable and that is one of the reasons they are targeted by Mr Winnifrith. Furthermore, most early stage companies will not succeed; that is the risk of investing in early stage or concept stocks. What isn't required is for these fledgling companies, already engaged in the exceptionally difficult task of building a new business, to also be subjected to savage libel and malicious falsehood. 

 

Mr Winnifrith finds it difficult to write a complete sentence that doesn't involve a manifest libel or gratuitous insult but, for arguments sake, assuming that what he was writing was entirely true, he should not be trying to destroy an entire company but seeking the resignation of whichever individual or group of individuals was/were responsible for whatever he complains about. 

 

Take Cloudtag, for example.  Presumably, when they were brought to the market, the Nomad was satisfied that the product was potentially viable and that the company wasn't populated by a legion of fraudsters? On that basis, one would assume that the sanction for any wrong doing, if there were any, would be for the party involved to resign, as happens with larger companies, rather than for the whole company to be destroyed. It is a deliberate policy of Mr Winnifrith to affix the fraud tag to an early stage company in order to destabilise and ultimately destroy it, so that his malicious falsehood becomes self fulfilling - to the serious detriment of the company's employees and smaller shareholders.

 

When I resolved to become involved in the necessary task of holding Mr Winnifrith to account through the Courts, I fully expected to be, and expect to continue to be, subjected to an intensified campaign of abuse. One of the reasons that Mr Winnifrith has not been held to account to date is because, understandably, most people would prefer to avoid being subjected to special abuse.  In my case, such is the injustice that Worthington and its shareholders have suffered at the hands of Mr Winnifrith, and the other Interferents described in the Tortious Interference Report, that this intensified abuse is a price well worth paying, 

 

 

20th December 2016 - Cloudtag and the Nomad system
One of the many serious allegations levelled against Mr Winnifrith in the Tortious Interference Report on this website, is that his activities distort and destabilise the market in smaller company shares. One of the several ways that he does this is to raise the prospect that a Nomad is going to resign, and to try and bring that about, which would result in the suspension of shares in the target company. The prospect of suspension then becomes a predominant consideration for investors in the target company, rather than the company's commercial prospects (which should be the key consideration), causing investors to flee the company, causing the share price to fall and thereby undermining the company's ability to raise capital, whilst at the same time giving the impression that the shares are collapsing due to Mr Winnifrith's allegations of fraud. 

 

In Mr Winnifrith's podcast today he states that it is the intention of one of his colleagues to contact all the clients of Cloudtag's Nomad, in order to try to destroy the business relationship between Cairn and those clients, in order that Cairn will consider it too damaging to remain with Cloudtag, with the intention that Cloudtag's business will be destroyed because it will not be able to find a replacement Nomad (which Nomad would want to replace Cairn in the firing line?) - to the satisfaction of those who are short of the stock. Is that right or fair? Is it lawful? I don't think so. I do not know very much about Cloudtag or its prospects, or whether it is a good or bad company, but I do know that deliberately trying to destroy the company in this way is unjust. 

 

This also exposes a fault line in the Nomad system when in essence you have a corporate serial killer on the loose, preying on entrepreneurial companies in the vulnerable development stage. By their very nature development stage companies are going to make mistakes, and many of their sales targets will be missed, but to label them as frauds and then try and destroy them in this way is pretty abhorrent. The real losers end up being the smaller investors who are locked into a private company unable to finance its business plan leading, inevitably, to the destruction of the company. It seems to me that whether or not a Nomad resigns has taken on a significance far greater than that originally intended when the AiM rules were first designed and which had not envisaged the activities of Mr Winnifirith. This activity is having a seriously destabilising effect on the smaller company sector as a whole. 

 

Perhaps a solution might be to have a two tier AiM sector, as happens in other countries. For a company to join AIM it would need a Nomad, but if it subsequently loses its Nomad, it would be relegated to the "No Nomad" section of the market on a caveat emptor basis. This would at least address this distortion until Mr Winnifrith's activities are ended. 

 

 

19 December 2016

I have noticed Mr Winnifrith's recent postings suggesting that I have accused him of insurance fraud and stealing £100,000 from one of his previous companies. To be clear, the report on this website accuses Mr Winnifrith of, inter alia: publishing stolen emails, breach of contract, distorting and destabilising the smaller company market, racketeering, tortious interference, malicious falsehood and deliberately destroying smaller companies (who are less able to defend themselves) whilst not applying the same approach to large companies who would have the time and resources to effectively combat him. The two things he is not accused of (insurance fraud and stealing £100,000) are instead the matters that he chooses to refute whilst ignoring the other 28 pages of the report. The report raises a question over the insurance claim and this missing £100,000 because, if an individual is involved in all the other unlawful activities mentioned, it is worth investigating, or re-investigating, whether these other unfortunate events might also have a less than innocent explanation. 

On the other hand, in keeping with his uncontrolled compulsion to libel almost everybody he targets, Mr Winnifrith - in the very same post - proceeds to state as fact something that he knows to be untrue: namely, that I was convicted of corporate theft when in fact, as the Judge stressed at the time, my conviction over 25 years ago did not involve dishonesty (see home page). 

If Mr Winnifrith thinks that this type of obfuscation will help him in the various forthcoming legal actions, I think he is going to be disappointed. 

 

19 December 2016

I have been asked to clarify what constitutes a small shareholder in relation to the gift of shares in the new listed company. In order to ensure that small WRN shareholders have a mirrored exposure to the deals that Worthington was going to complete, it is not possible for the Injured Parties referred to in the Report to also be gifted shares. The Injured Parties will only participate in the new company to the extent that they have provided funds to it, or the transactions themselves; they will therefore have to sue the Interferents referred to in the Report for any losses sustained in relation to the matters raised in it. All other WRN shareholders will be entitled to the free shares. 

Print Print | Sitemap
© Aidan Earley