MM and KillermanJ
I’m going to respond because I think it’s important that followers of this BB understand how potentially significant this could be, even though clearly none of us have the full picture. I believe this area is a big red flag which should be factored in to any decision to hold shares in PMG.
My only agenda is to use these BB’s to gather and share knowledge- and for reasons that should be obvious ( and I mention below) this information is of relevance to shareholders in PMG. I haven’t misquoted a press release, I’ve simply drawn a natural inference from it based on information in the public domain but which people may not have connected. If I wanted to mislead I would hardly have pasted the link to the original source!
I had assumed that owners of PMG would know that the ‘HBOS Impaired Assets Division’ was inextricably intertwined with Mills and Quayside in the frauds for which Mills and HBOS bankers were convicted. Whilst it is possible that a fraud unconnected with Mills and Quayside ( and hence PMG) was ALSO taking place at HBOS Impaired Asserts that would be an extraordinary coincidence. The much more likely explanation is that if there was other fraud at HBOS IAD then it involved Mills/Quayside /PMG. Hence the inference I drew.
As Killerman suggests will be the case ONCE PMG is actually named in a press release I think this is a risk worth considering NOW. As no details of the number or value of the other frauds being explored is yet known I’m unsure how anyone can assess the potential hit to PMG if they result in prosecutions, or even only the release of information which leads to civil actions by former PMG shareholders . It may be nothing or it could be existential. Hence why I think it is something which should not be ignored, just because understanding the impact is challenging, but should be researched and be something that shareholders should share information about as more becomes public, whether explicitly or more subtly.
That is a sensible use of this BB.
The court seemed to acknowledge that the criminal charges were merely examples of wider bad behaviour so the latest development is consistent with that and no surprise.
As you say MM, companies are generally responsible for the actions of their directors and you give no reason why that principle wouldn’t apply to PMG.
I endorse your reference of Ian Fraser. He’s knowledgable, forensic and tenacious.
Drawing attention to a dark period in PMG’s history, that is still reverberating and could cast a very long shadow on PMG isn’t ‘tarnishing’ PMG. It’s the events themselves that caused the problem. As you say Tom Cross and David Mills shared the board for almost 9 months.
You mention Core Enterprise Management but that seems to contradict your view that this is irrelevant. CEM is another link that may cause PMG shareholders concern as it (amongst other things) indicates the close relationship between a PMG director called Gordon Ashworth and David Mills. Ashworth was a director of PMG until Jan 2010- overlapping with Cross for over 3 years. Despite the carnage that Mills caused PMG in 2006/7 ( which you estimate to have been £8m ) Ashworth was on the board of CEM with Mills many years later suggesting they were quite close despite what Ashworth knew of Mills past form!
It’s opaque and clearly there are many questions that need answering. There may be no financial exposure for PMG but personally with so many other shares out there I wouldn’t take the risk. PMG itself won’t guarantee the market that it can have no possible exposure because even they cannot know.