FT Blog on the Worthington Group (Rangers related)

[Jim1955 12]

More today from www.shareprophets.com. leaked emails where the conversation leads to a request for someone with experience of previous "heists". Make your own mind up.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jim1955

[forlanssister 3,114]

More today from http://www.shareprophets.com. leaked emails where the conversation leads to a request for someone with experience of previous "heists". Make your own mind up.

 

Hello Share Pickers. So Tom as been threatened with police action because he has some documents that a company called Worthington would rather he did not have.

 

They say the documents were stolen and passed on to Tom. As you might expect. Tom is not even slightly bothered by a threat to call the police.

 

He cannot reveal his source, because no journalist in this country would ever do that. It would be the end of his or her career. We all sign up to that when we join the profession.

 

Not that Tom has any cause to fear going to jail, because every prosecutor in the country knows that no professional writer would ever back down on this issue.

 

It is however, very common for companies and people who are under deep investigation by journalists to threaten legal action.

 

They rarely report their investigators to the police, though, because the police are well aware that proper journalists do not back down, just because the long arm of the law is invoked. So Plod refuses to be in invoked in the first place. It used to happen, but the courts have virtually given up, now.

 

As Tom rightly says, the correct procedure when criticised by a journalist, is to publish stats proving that the journalist is wrong. Calling the police or threatening lawyer’s letters is often perceived as an easy way out. If the investigated expect journalists to cower in fear, well, they don't.

 

To reiterate: in my 30 years' experience of investigative journalism for both Fleet Street and the BBC, a reporter peaching on his sources is utterly unknown. Tom is not being super defiant or courageous. He does what he has to do – keeping the names of his informant (s) out of it.

 

Though being a bloke of huge integrity, Tom doesn't need the journalists' code of ethics to keep him in check. He would stand up against his detractors anyway. As his proud record shows.

 

In the first part of this series we published a confidential record of a pensions regulation meeting concerning Jerome, The Worthington pension fund. – HERE. The regulator seemed concerned both by the acts of Ware & Simpson (the Worthington directors who were also trustees) but also about the two chaps brought in. Were they really qualified? I shall show later this week that they were not.

 

This email exchange shows what their real qualifications were – read to the end. And weep.

 

It also shows the involvement of James Holmes of Merchant House of which more later and that the man calling the shots here is Aiden Earley who is disqualified as acting as a director but truly seems like he is running the show. A shadow director? More on him later. Anyhow enjoy these emails!

 

From: Aidan Earley

To: jamesholmes@mobileemail.vodafone.net

Subject: RE: the agreement.

Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:09:26 +0000

 

Should be able to meet at 12.30 for 2 hrs – could you make sure Hugh gets the certificate sorted as I don’t want Lenny to become an unnecessary problem.

 

Prior to meeting however can you look into why the SPV agreement only refers to £1.65m of bonds - for the £3m capital to be guaranteed it needs to be £3m plus 10% initial fluctuation cover. As it is at the moment there is no guarantee from the bond holder for the £3m. It is a £1.65m punt on Brazilian Bonds and a £1.35m punt on MHG. May as well just take a punt directly on MHG (which would never happen) rather than also take a punt on Brazilian bonds. There is no guarantee of the £3m coming back other than from a newco BVI Company.

 

£3m of BBB bonds plus at least 10% fluctuation cover needs to be in the Collins Stewart account – in the event that the Brazilian Bonds decline in value then the cover needs to be increased to maintain the 10% fluctuation cover. In the event that additional bonds are not topped up that is an event of default.

 

Doesn’t currently look anything like the concept of tie up cash for nine years guaranteed by $1bn fund with large over coverage of bonds – and carving out for MHG that proportion of the money not needed to guarantee the return of the principal.

 

From: James Holmes [mailto:jamesholmes@mobileemail.vodafone.net]

Sent: 16 November 2012 07:39

To: Aidan Earley

Subject: Re: the agreement.

 

Aidan,

Can we meet lunchtime and early afternoon and try to get this put to bed in terms of agreed docs and process. Time is getting very short. Thanks.

 

James Holmes,

Chairman,

Merchant Capital Limited.

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Services Authority

Members of the London Stock Exchange.

 

From: Aidan Earley

 

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:54:32 +0000

 

To: James Holmes<JamesH@robertholmes.co.uk>

 

Subject: Re: the agreement.

 

Did you send me the CVs of the prospective trustees - in particular relevant experience (e.g successful previous heists an advantage etc)

 

http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10652/the-worthington-fraud-part-4-meet-james-holmes-more-confidential-emails

[forlanssister 3,114]

Part 15 of the Shareprophets exposure of the Worthington Group appears to be a cracker (if genuine which I think it is).

 

Doug Ware the CEO of Worthington insists that he has only ever met Craig Whyte of Rangers fame for 15 minutes and moved immediately to sever all links with Whyte when taking control. That was a lie. An email which I reproduce below is a damning indictment of Ware, Whyte and Aiden Earley as it lays bare the Worthington fraud.

 

The email is sent from Earley to Ware on May 31 2012 and explicitly shows that Earley (a twice disqualified director) and Whyte work as a team and that they have set up the whole Worthington adventure. It shows clearly that Earley was working as a shadow director (a criminal offence) and as we revealed earlier today he still was in late 2014 (HERE). It shows that Ware had agreed that Worthington would buy businesses from Whyte. And it shows that both Earley and Ware were to get kickbacks from all deals done.

 

I shall be passing this email together with a complete dossier of documents, emails and articles to the Serious Fraud Office and to the UKLA (FCA) on my return to England. In view of what emerges here the position of Ware is completely untenable and the chances of Worthington shares being unsuspended are almost nil. And I do have more material to come.

 

The email is from Earley’s personal account and reads:

 

Subject: The letter that you wanted

 

Hi Doug

Potentially an exciting day today.

 

As per your request, I hereby confirm that the agreement you are signing with Pete today is on my behalf effectively as my agent and so in every instance where there is a right or obligation accruing to you such right or obligation is in fact accruing to me and I hereby indemnify you accordingly and absolutely.

 

As regards our overall agreement I confirm that all rights which accrue to me accrue to you as to 6.5%.

 

Thank you that you are taking up the post of CEO predominantly as a favour to me so that you can ensure that I finally do get paid for all the work and effort that I put in - and that you will see to it that my interests are protected and that I can finally get on top of my finances. It was always agreed with Pete that I would get £10k per month plus VAT but this stopped in December and so I have arrears that need to be brought up to date.

 

We agreed that, as you have income, you did not propose to take money from Worthington (at least until it starts making money) but that I needed to clear a payment to you from Craig as otherwise it would be unrealistic from his point of view. But we agreed that any money that you did receive from Worthington in this respect would go towards repaying the loan that I have with you as regards our overall agreement. However we have agreed that you will receive 2m WRN share options at the same price as Pete’s (11p per share) – albeit any disposal of shares would be in the spirit of not undermining the share price.

 

As you know the Worthington situation arose out of a joint deal that I have with Craig and so I run things by Craig in advance – albeit I do not believe, for the reasons that you know about (i.e. Craig only ever acts in his own interests regardless of any agreement that may be in place), that I am acting in concert with him. However he is a source of good deals and it is the intention for Worthington to look to acquire some of those. For each of these acquisitions you will also receive 6.5% of any shares etc that accrue to me (as defined under our existing agreement).

 

If there are opportunities that arise from Worthington – e.g. the property etc – these would also be governed by the existing agreement where you receive 6.5% of whatever benefit I receive.

 

I believe the above sets out accurately what we have agreed. Obviously if you disagree let me know asap – before I get Collins Stewart to buy Pete’s shares!!

 

Lots of love

 

Aidan x

 

 

Ends.

 

 

Folks that is a gotcha! During this 15 pert series I have shown that Worthington’s accounts are bogus, that its deals such as GREP and the Media deals are worthless shams, that it has not issued honest and timely RNS’s and that Craig Whyte and Aiden Earley have made a killing dumping shares. And now you know that for all his protestations of being a new broom Ware was working with Earley and White all along. This email is the clincher.

 

If Worthington wish to sue me for libel for saying that it is a fraud I am ready and waiting and have provided an address to be served at. But all bar the biggest numbskull on this planet must now appreciate that I have nothing whatsoever to worry about as this is a slam dunk. If Worthington wishes to piss away what little cash it has on a daft libel case it can go ahead but I rather sense that following this weekend’s revelations I am the least of its problems.

 

As to the morons who have posted bogus reviews of our restaurant, abused me on Bulletin Boards and on twitter and send images of a knife to me on twitter, I suggest that you form an orderly queue to apologise.

 

http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10738/the-worthington-fraud-part-15-this-is-the-killer-email There are links to the other 14 parts in that link.

[pete 2,499]

Hi Doug

Potentially an exciting day today.

 

As per your request, I hereby confirm that the agreement you are signing with Pete today is on my behalf effectively as my agent and so in every instance where there is a right or obligation accruing to you such right or obligation is in fact accruing to me and I hereby indemnify you accordingly and absolutely.

 

As regards our overall agreement I confirm that all rights which accrue to me accrue to you as to 6.5%.

 

Thank you that you are taking up the post of CEO predominantly as a favour to me so that you can ensure that I finally do get paid for all the work and effort that I put in - and that you will see to it that my interests are protected and that I can finally get on top of my finances. It was always agreed with Pete that I would get £10k per month plus VAT but this stopped in December and so I have arrears that need to be brought up to date.

 

We agreed that, as you have income, you did not propose to take money from Worthington (at least until it starts making money) but that I needed to clear a payment to you from Craig as otherwise it would be unrealistic from his point of view. But we agreed that any money that you did receive from Worthington in this respect would go towards repaying the loan that I have with you as regards our overall agreement. However we have agreed that you will receive 2m WRN share options at the same price as Pete’s (11p per share) – albeit any disposal of shares would be in the spirit of not undermining the share price.

 

As you know the Worthington situation arose out of a joint deal that I have with Craig and so I run things by Craig in advance – albeit I do not believe, for the reasons that you know about (i.e. Craig only ever acts in his own interests regardless of any agreement that may be in place), that I am acting in concert with him. However he is a source of good deals and it is the intention for Worthington to look to acquire some of those. For each of these acquisitions you will also receive 6.5% of any shares etc that accrue to me (as defined under our existing agreement).

 

If there are opportunities that arise from Worthington – e.g. the property etc – these would also be governed by the existing agreement where you receive 6.5% of whatever benefit I receive.

 

I believe the above sets out accurately what we have agreed. Obviously if you disagree let me know asap – before I get Collins Stewart to buy Pete’s shares!!

 

Lots of love

 

Aidan x

 

I just want to radically state that I have nothing to do with this.

[Zappa 0]

Lots of love

 

Aidan x

 

Slightly strange way for a man to sign off business correspondence with another man is it not?

[Bearman 9]

Heterosexuals would be more discrete.

[blueflag 386]

I've been reading this with interest over the weekend. That Is On Serious Head On He Is Having With them

[Mountain Bear 0]

I wonder whether this has any impact on the outstanding legal claim over our assets now "owned" by Worthington.

 

I suspect it was never going anywhere to start with, but hopefully these revelations will lead to it being killed off completely.

[Zappa 0]

I wonder whether this has any impact on the outstanding legal claim over our assets now "owned" by Worthington.

 

I suspect it was never going anywhere to start with, but hopefully these revelations will lead to it being killed off completely.

 

It sounds like Craig Whyte, Aidan Earley and Doug Ware are going to be needing to spend their cash on keeping themselves out of jail never mind chasing bogus assets claims.

[Frankie 8,663]

Whyte is in court today v Collyer Bristow...