Rsv Shareholder's Action Group

Anomalous

“In fact, we will be contacting the appropriate people to have your details checked. As you know, it is an offence under the COMC to spread lies.”

Check away, I look forward to your abject apology once you have confirmed my previous comment that I have no connection whatsoever. Please put the apology in large bold letters to be sure of catching my attention. Perhaps you might also consider making a donation of say £100 to the NSPCC? It would make me feel that you are sincere in your apology.


“Jacko spread a lie this afternoon by saying that it is not market abuse for pre-selling of a debt for equity issue, when he knows full well that the FSA recently had a paper on this very issue and concluded that it WAS a serious market abuse. Any pre-sell or 'icing' as he called it is a market abuse and since they asked regular users for this opinion, it must be so.”

If you have bothered to read the paper then you will know that your comment is inaccurate (yet again, your kind of making a habit of this).


“ But what we saw here was not 'covered' shorting but naked aggressive and abusive shorting.”

How do you know this? How do you know that the MMs hadn’t, for example, entered into a purchase contract on the other side with another party? Say Chiddingfold? You don’t know this because you haven’t bothered to gather any evidence other than the evidence that supports your primary theory. You have simply appointed yourself as the head of a kangaroo court and convicted the MMs even though you have no authority to do so.


“A clear breach of contract. The LSE has confirmed that the reason there was 'settlement difficulties', is because the MM did not have the shares. They had abusively shorted to the extent that they could not deliver. The MMs have clearly misrepresented their ability to deliver the shares.”

I presume that you now acknowledge that my comment about the voting at the AGM is accurate and that voting rights are only obtained at the point of settlement? If you could confirm this then perhaps we can move onto the calculation of loss and how that applies to your fantasy about calling an EGM. After all, there’s no point moving on until we have “closure” on open issues.

Did you confirm with the LSE if the MMs’ physical stock shortage was due to their selling short or because a counterparty on the other side of a trade had failed? Or did you not bother, make a big assumption and jump to a huge conclusion? If their failure to deliver shares was directly caused by a third party defaulting on them then did they “misrepresent” their ability to deliver? Have you bothered to get legal advice that considers this possibility? Are you sure that you’ve bothered to get ANY legal advice at all?


“So we are suing for the Misrepresentation.”

Really? Does such a thing exist? Are you sure that you’re not suing for “breach of contract”?


“We are also speaking with the Serious Fraud Office as well, about possible charges under the Theft Act section 15.”

Are they speaking back or ignoring you? Have they told you yet that this is a commercial matter that is totally outside of their jurisdiction and suggested that you contact the FSA or LSE?


“The MM's knew full well that they could not deliver something that did not exist. If they try to explain this by claiming that they knew the issue would be passed, then that would be insider trading.”

Are you sure? What if their failure to deliver was caused by an outside third party? In which case the MMs wouldn’t have “known” that they wouldn’t be able to deliver.


Especially when it comes to Shore. I'm going to enjoy teaching them a lesson about ethics.

This is probably the one where you’re going to have to eat your words. The guy has already told you that they have no material position. Just because they haven’t delivered stock doesn’t mean that they have a position, it could quite simply be that somebody has failed to deliver stock to them, which would perfectly reconcile with his comment that they have no position and yet their difficulty in delivering physical stock. But I don’t suppose that you’ve bothered to think about that have you? I suspect that’s because that explanation wouldn’t fit conveniently with your lynch-mob mentality.

Finally, if at the end of the day the problem lies at Chiddingfold, could you explain how you will sue a foreign company in a UK court? How can you anyone force a foreign company to come to the UK?