SPML/LMC anyone claimed for mis selling and unfair charges?

[supersleuth]

..the record speaks for itself, i have only attacked the jackals, so no debate needed. now cagwatched, so its a case of freedom of speech-just watch what you say...can't imagine any under 16s, being interested in securitisation?

 

 

 

indeed, i see vodafone..

 

 

 

 

 

Makaveli

KwA

 

 

As a public forum, I welcome those that you call "Jackals". They do add to the debate and tease out the nitty gritty to help us formulate the winning argument. That's why differences of opinion are so important. And if you really believe in free-speech, then you too should accept those who you call Jackals are also entitled to free speech.

Edited February 21, 2010 by supersleuth

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

 

1. Posted a number of times previously, that its either under s.236 under CA 1985 or the equivalent s.503 CA 2006. For sake of brevity and confusion, as 1985 CA repealed in full, posted under CA 2006. Nevertheless, s.236 1985 is still valid, and can be confirmed by Mark Youde(CH). Any complaint, would be adjusted to the relevant act(as 4 JAWs/different ARD), and explained by each representative body in any reply, that is their function and they are obliged to do do.

 

Everyone can check for themselves

 

236.—(1) The auditors' report shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them. CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young

 

(2) Every copy of the auditors' report which is laid before the company in general meeting, or which is otherwise circulated, published or issued, shall state the names of the auditors. CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young

 

(3) The copy of the auditors' report which is delivered to the registrar shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them.CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and Signed Ernst & Young

 

(4) If a copy of the auditors' report—

• (a) is laid before the company, or otherwise circulated, published or issued, without the required statement of the auditors' names, or
  

 

• (b) is delivered to the registrar without the required statement of the auditors' names or without being signed as required by this section,
  

the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.

 

CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and Signed Ernst & Young

 

(5) References in this section to signature by the auditors are, where the office of auditor is held by a body corporate or partnership, to signature in the name of the body corporate or partnership by a person authorised to sign on its behalf.

 

CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and as a body corporate the signature is in the name of the body corporate Ernst & Young.

 

 

Looks like s.236 is complied with in full.

[JonCris]

Everyone's an eejit .............. 'cept me

[martdj]

As an alternative way forward has anyone tried getting the media onside viz. Watchdog, Panorama or the likes. If there has been criminal activity within these companies then Im sure that someone within the media would love to investigate, or perhaps its all too diifficult for them. We should remind the Beeb that as licence payers they should take heed of our woes. If we were all to write to watchdog surely they cannot ignore the issue

[verycatchy7939]

why not scare them and report them to police for fraud.

Kick off an SFO investigation,

what we got to loose

[littledotty27]

why not scare them and report them to police for fraud.

Kick off an SFO investigation,

what we got to loose

 

Already done this,still waiting for a reply,reported to watchdog,media etc,their not interested.

[martdj]

How many have reported to watchdog? if only one or two then they wouldn't be. If we all e mailed and wrote then maybe they might take notice. [EDIT] What evidence did you present to the Police? If they have not investigated then why not make a formal complaint

Edited February 23, 2010 by alanfromderby
Inappropriate

[actionnotwords]

The direction and thrust of the main argument as well documented and posted by Ryde is that these companies in the case of sppl and LMC are issuing directives for litigation without any personnel employed within the company to actually give such directions on the company's behalf this is akin to a dead person issuing directions for events as they currently happen from the grave.

This argument strikes at the whole core of locus standi legal standing of these companies to issue litigation and is worthy of full consideration and debate as to its legality and a legal argument couched in proper terms to defeat any such litigation by these companies immediately upon its instigation in the courts is imperative.

[supersleuth]

Everyone can check for themselves

 

236.—(1) The auditors' report shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them. CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young

 

(2) Every copy of the auditors' report which is laid before the company in general meeting, or which is otherwise circulated, published or issued, shall state the names of the auditors. CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young

 

(3) The copy of the auditors' report which is delivered to the registrar shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them.CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and Signed Ernst & Young

 

(4) If a copy of the auditors' report—

• (a) is laid before the company, or otherwise circulated, published or issued, without the required statement of the auditors' names, or
  

 

• (b) is delivered to the registrar without the required statement of the auditors' names or without being signed as required by this section,
  

the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.

 

CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and Signed Ernst & Young

 

(5) References in this section to signature by the auditors are, where the office of auditor is held by a body corporate or partnership, to signature in the name of the body corporate or partnership by a person authorised to sign on its behalf.

 

CHECK - Clearly states Ernst & Young and as a body corporate the signature is in the name of the body corporate Ernst & Young.

 

 

Looks like s.236 is complied with in full.

 

You raise a very valid point. At first blush, s.236 looks like its been complied with. However, I also note that it is not on E&Y letterhead. Therefore, are E&Y really making the opinion? You see, if a company has not seen fit to put a statutory opinion on its letterhead, are they really taking responsibility for that opinion? If E&Y had to stand up in court, would they say, "it's not our opinion, all our opinions are written on our letter heard"?

 

Don't think that you can hold any company responsible for a letter written on blank paper. Companies (or partnerships) only take legal responsibility for that which they have put on their letterhead.

 

Do you still think that s.236 has been complied with if the accounts do not contain a bona fide statutory auditors opinion?

 

Is some random E&Y (name unknown) signature on a blank page sufficient to comply with the statutorily required auditor's opinion? Or do you think that the opinion should be on E&Y letterhead to satisfy the statutory requirement.

[martdj]

The only way these companies will change their unlawful activities is if they are named and shamed in the public eye ie the Media. they will not take notice of a small number of us unless one of the District Judges decvdes that enough is enough and a sated case is forthcoming. A company as large as this can hide behind all sorts of Company Laww etc and until we get a lawyer who specialises in such matters on our side we will not acheive much just quoting various acts etc

[I'm the bad guy?]

..Super.

 

 

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Makaveli

KwA

42nd Division(US)

enter Dachau 1945

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

A number of interesting points Super.

 

1) There is no statutory requirement for the opinion to be given on letterheaded paper.

 

2) s.236 specifically requires a body corporate signature to be in the name of the body corporate a.k.a some random E&Y (name unknown) signature.

 

As demonstrated all of the statutory requirements of s.236 have been met, have they not ?

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

If either you or ITBG? are able to show how the opinion does not comply with statutory requirements, I would very much appreciate it.

[actionnotwords]

With respect what bearing does the above question have on the far more important question of locus standi in which there is clear and undisputed evidence from these companies own current documentation as shown through public records that they have no personnel,yet only last week litigation was instigated.The only person employed by spml/pml is Amany Attia has anyone seen her personal instruction to either the third party administrator or solicitors to issue litigation on behalf of these two companies.

[martdj]

Does the DPA apply to records in the public domain anyway? If that were the case then we would not be able to publish telephone numbers or names of various organisations

[mrsiphone]

Does the DPA apply to records in the public domain anyway? If that were the case then we would not be able to publish telephone numbers or names of various organisations

 

At a guess, I would say there is a difference between posting someones work telephone number and their home address.

[supersleuth]

Perhaps the E&Y opinion is the achilles heal. You see, if everybody writes to CH to demand to see a copy of the opinion written on E&Y letterhead, that would flush out whether it is, or is not, a bona fide E&Y opinion. And flush out (kill) the company too!

 

In my view, it probably isn't an E&Y opinion that they will legally stand by. E&Y have their letter head on the vast majority of all the other accounts filings for the Lehman's entities, but not on this one. Think about it, E&Y don't want to take legal responsibility for it so either they, or maybe even PwC, wrote the opinion and signed it in the hope that some random clerk at CH would pass the accounts without noticing.

 

To flush this out, need to ask CH for a copy of the opinion on E&Y letterhead. No letterhead, no statutory auditor's opinion and therefore, no filed accounts.

 

There is no criminal depths to which these fraudsters will not stoop. False auditor's opinion and false accounting is just another few for the list - they just plan on not getting caught. Didn't take account of us caggers through did they?

Edited February 21, 2010 by supersleuth

[mrsiphone]

To flush this out, need to ask CH for a copy of the opinion on E&Y letterhead. No letterhead, no statutory auditor's opinion and therefore, no filed accounts.

 

Is there a specific statutory requirement for a letterhead ?

[supersleuth]

A number of interesting points Super.

 

1) There is no statutory requirement for the opinion to be given on letterheaded paper.

 

2) s.236 specifically requires a body corporate signature to be in the name of the body corporate a.k.a some random E&Y (name unknown) signature.

 

As demonstrated all of the statutory requirements of s.236 have been met, have they not ?

 

 

No, don't think so. If you look again, you may see that the provisions concerning the auditor's signature states that it must give the name the person signing unless it is written on the letterhead. In this case, neither the auditor is named (i.e. the partner responsible for the audit) nor is it written on letterhead (thus the partnership are not taking responsibility either). And besides, the statute doesn't need to say it must be written on letterhead because, if its not on letterhead, its not the opinion of that partnership. Do you honestly believe that a court would hold E&Y legally responsible for that opinion when it is not on their letterhead?

 

Plus note also, that there's no compliance with the partnership statutory requirements for partnership letters. E.g., no address on the opinion, no reference to the names of partners etc., which are required analogous to requirements of an incorporated company which must state its co. registration number and address on its letterhead.

 

There's nothing on the alleged "E&Y" opinion to authenticate it as a bona fide and lawful E&Y opinion. In fact, how do you know that I didn't write the E&Y opinion - any of us could have written and signed that as E&Y. What is there on that blank sheet to authenticate as E&Y at law.

 

If a "body corporate" is taking responsibility for the opinion, then the body corporate must put it on their letter head if they want to sign it as the body corporate i.e. sign as E&Y. If its not on the body corporate letterhead, it is not an opinion of the body corporate.

Edited February 21, 2010 by supersleuth

[martdj]

I have just e mailed E&Y asking whether this is a genuine document and the name of the person who audited the acounts. Lets see what happens!

[ryde]

If this is fraudulent, with their access to this site they will be absolutely .....themselves I would think.There again if you look at tha auditors opinion its hardly glowing is it.In fact it says the future is decidedly dodgy especially if certain debts are called in.If this was a fraudulent report would you say we've got an uncertain future?

Edited February 21, 2010 by ryde

[I'M THE GOOD GIRL ?]

No, don't think so. If you look again, you may see that the provisions concerning the auditor's signature states that it must give the name the person signing unless it is written on the letterhead. In this case, neither the auditor is named nor is it written on letterhead. And besides, the statute doesn't need to say it must be written on letterhead because, if its not on letterhead, its not the opinion of that partnership. Do you honestly believe that a court would hold E&Y legally responsible for that opinion when it is not on their letterhead?

 

Plus note also, that there's no compliance with the partnership statutory requirements for partnership letters. E.g., no address on the opinion, no reference to the names of partners etc., which are required analogous to requirements of an incorporated company which must state its co. registration number and address on its letterhead.

 

There's nothing on the alleged "E&Y" opinion to authenticate it as a bona fide and lawful E&Y opinion. In fact, how do you know that I didn't write the E&Y opinion - any of us could have written and signed that as E&Y. What is there on that blank sheet to authenticate as E&Y at law.

 

 

Could you please confirm which provisions your refer.

 

"Auditors' report"

 

Auditors' report.

235.—(1) A company's auditors shall make a report to the company's members on all annual accounts of the company of which copies are to be laid before the company in general meeting during their tenure of office.

 

(2) The auditors' report shall state whether in the auditors' opinion the annual accounts have been properly prepared in accordance with this Act, and in particular whether a true and fair view is given—

• (a) in the case of an individual balance sheet, of the state of affairs of the company as at the end of the financial year,
  

 

• (b) in the case of an individual profit and loss account, of the profit or loss of the company for the financial year,
  

 

• © in the case of group accounts, of the state of affairs as at the end of the financial year, and the profit or loss for the financial year, of the undertakings included in the consolidation as a whole, so far as concerns members of the company.
  

(3) The auditors shall consider whether the information given in the directors' report for the financial year for which the annual accounts are prepared is consistent with those accounts; and if they are of opinion that it is not they shall state that fact in their report. Signature of auditors' report .

 

236.—(1) The auditors' report shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them.

 

(2) Every copy of the auditors' report which is laid before the company in general meeting, or which is otherwise circulated, published or issued, shall state the names of the auditors.

 

(3) The copy of the auditors' report which is delivered to the registrar shall state the names of the auditors and be signed by them.

 

(4) If a copy of the auditors' report—

• (a) is laid before the company, or otherwise circulated, published or issued, without the required statement of the auditors' names, or
  

 

• (b) is delivered to the registrar without the required statement of the auditors' names or without being signed as required by this section,
  

the company and every officer of it who is in default is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.

 

(5) References in this section to signature by the auditors are, where the office of auditor is held by a body corporate or partnership, to signature in the name of the body corporate or partnership by a person authorised to sign on its behalf. Duties of auditors.

 

237.—(1) A company's auditors shall, in preparing their report, carry out such investigations as will enable them to form an opinion as to—

• (a) whether proper accounting records have been kept by the company and proper returns adequate for their audit have been received from branches not visited by them, and
  

 

• (b) whether the company's individual accounts are in agreement with the accounting records and returns.
  

(2) If the auditors are of opinion that proper accounting records have not been kept, or that proper returns adequate for their audit have not been received from branches not visited by them, or if the company's individual accounts are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns, the auditors shall state that fact in their report.

 

(3) If the auditors fail to obtain all the information and explanations which, to the best of their knowledge and belief, are necessary for the purposes of their audit, they shall state that fact in their report.

 

(4) If the requirements of Schedule 6 (disclosure of information: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others) are not complied with in the annual accounts, the auditors shall include in their report, so far as they are reasonably able to do so, a statement giving the required particulars."

[supersleuth]

Hi ITGG

 

Could you explain how a body corporate can be held legally responsible for a document that is not written on their letterhead and where identity and the address of the signor is totally anonymous?

 

Do you know of any examples of cases where a body corporate has been held legally responsible for documents that are not written on their letterhead?

 

Note: 236 (3) The copy of the auditors' report which is delivered to the registrar shall state the names of the auditors AND be signed by them.

 

The E&Y is signed (allegedly) by E&Y, but where is the E&Y name expressly "stated". Normally, this would be the letterhead. Do you read the signature as a conflation of both stated and signed?

 

I firmly believe that if this came on top for E&Y, they would say, not us, not on our letterhead. And that would be a sound reason for them denying anything to do with the opinion. As long as they can deny the opinion (if indeed it is their opinion), it is in my view, not an E&Y opinion.

Edited February 21, 2010 by supersleuth

[ryde]

Wheres this going what youre saying is that the report has been manufactured to cast doubt on their ability to carry on as a going concern??? Thats how it reads or is it worse than stated if you look at the figures??

[supersleuth]

Does the DPA apply to records in the public domain anyway? If that were the case then we would not be able to publish telephone numbers or names of various organisations

 

[opps, sorry, wrong martdj quote: meant to quote his post about emailing E&Y i.e. post no. 5012]

 

 

Let us know how you get on. Wonder if they'll admit that it is their opinion. So please keep us informed.

 

In the meantime, I also think CH is a good way forward. Demand to see a copy of the opinion on E&Y letterhead. That will at least make E&Y legally responsible for the accounts, which in all probability are pure fairy tale fiction (fraudulent accounts)....and chances are, E&Y know it and won't want to take legal responsibility for the accounts.

 

That's if, E&Y really are in this. It could be PwC who have been instrumental in arguing for more time to comply who may have manufactured this appearance of accounting compliance. Need to flush out the truth.

Edited February 21, 2010 by supersleuth
To clarify the quoted post