UK 12:43 Wednesday, 7 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Aiden Earley, the shadow director of the fraud Worthington (WRN) – who borrowed £375,000 – from the company as soon as he gained control, using money borrowed from convicted felon Kevin Sykes, today obtained an interim injunction against me.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
catempire
Its like an educated version of Eastenders. classic.
Daniel Victor
Good luck in court,Tom !
john g
Keep posting on WRN Tom….. let the feckers know they aren’t the first ones to act so cowardly against you in this way.
turbograndad
TOM,
Good for you, its a big try on as you well know how these people work, its a wonder they have not served a notice for harassment, all bogus legal gamesmanship.
You will have all our support, and best regards to the missis.
James
Good luck with poverty Tom
ShyTot
Walk in the park,
This is what you were hoping for anyways? SER must seem an age ago.
Who knows you might get another chance with your favourite stock yet?!
Enjoy your day out.
DUCK AND DIVE
Good luck, Tom. I’m sure Channel 4 would be interested in following this story for a documentary. When you offer it to them (tomorrow), ask for opinion from their senior producer and lawyers.
“The main defence to any legal action for breach of confidence, or an application for an injunction based on confidence, is that there is an overriding public interest in publication – the public interest in publication is greater than the public interest in maintaining the confidence.
“In resisting any application for an injunction or any action for damages, it would be up to the broadcaster to establish that publication/broadcast was in the public interest, for example it was necessary to expose crime, corruption, anti-social behaviour or injustice.”
http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/privacy-confidence-and-data-protection/legal-protection-of-confidential-information
Bob
Just in case you have to watch it via You Tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvlTJrNJ5lA
Follows through to other stuff.
Not sure I understand that one. I know nothing beyond if they wish to pay £525 per hour to someone else but as I understand things they need to give you three working days to respond. Given you gave them a service address I might only assume that since you were elsewhere the service address did not forward the details to you in time for a proper response.
I might be inclined to ask why, given the service address, those concerned have only decided at this particular time.. assuming it is this particular time.. to ‘service you’.
Anyway. I Know Nothing. Hope the Lefty Wife exited ‘surgery?’ alive so she and the cats can keep you in the cold garage… your place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDRPtg0kmJU
Go Rock to The Beak Tom.
hammer69
Tom,
Good luck.
Where’s the legal action Doug promised WRN would action against you? As with his RNS’ and Q&A’s can’t seem to meet any self imposed deadline. Maybe WRN is a little short of readies, so had their “banker” step up to the plate instead.
Rather pathetic really, as doesn’t stop you writing about WRN (and presumably neither about the actual companies Aidan and his cronies hide behind).
H69
T.Welbourn
I am no lawyer, and it surprises me that an injunction can order you to return/destroy your evidence before you have had a chance to defend yourself in court. Is that really correct?
wildrides
Good luck on the day in court ……….. although I am sure you wont need to rely on luck . May your wife make a swift recovery and Oakley act as your legal teams lucky mascot . Keep up the great work cleaning up AIM for us all .
Sweet Karolina
Tom,
It is very good of you to give Aiden the opportunity to see the inside of a court from a position other than the dock.
I am quite sure everyone knows how you feel about copyright breaches from your site and nobody will have downloaded the whole series using the links you so kindly put there..
I still can’t work out why the Q&A needed to be delayed because if this. I hope Doug is not going to lie and try and make out this is something more than what it is.
Looking forward to reading about WRN’s mining assets tomorrow.
Yddor
Tom:
Are you able to give details of the venue and might well-wishers attend?
Y
Temptress
Will you publish the court hearing details Tom ie time and court room. I may try and get down to spectate. I sat in on a number of hearings when Nigel Smith tried to sue umpteen posters for libel and it was interesting how perceptive to the body language of onlookers the Judges were.
I believe that you are providing a very useful public service and you and your family have my best wishes.
VINES
Calling stocks that bite the dust are nice scalps, more power to yer elbow, but a real live scalping would be nice and ‘fraid’n weirdy could be it. The rhyming slang fits as hes running scared and his writing style was weird, all garbled sentences, sob story to lawyer, and that signoff to doug, all my love x, We still don’t have an answer to the big question. Did doug reciprocate
J P Spaghetti
Good luck from me too, though I also fail to see why you should need it. As to whether you were acting in the public interest, make the point that WRN’s shares were and are traded on a public exchange! QED? Should the court be having a particularly obtuse day and / or this doesn’t cause the penny to drop straight away, explain to it that I and probably most posters here are members of the public and that it is therefore our call, and that we support your actions.
alcira16247
Tom
Can you explain how Aiden Earley’s injunction against you has prevented Worthington releasing its much anticipated news of new deals, time scales, re-listing and the ‘reassuring news’? Likewise Mr Wares popular and enlightening Q&A also pulled.
I find it hard to understand why the actions of a private individual (albeit a shareholder) against you is reason enough to stop a PLC from releasing important company information to concerned investors.
Might we now also expect the ‘mainstream media’ to belatedly start following the saga of Worthington, Mr Aiden Earley and cohorts, after today’s events, a la Quindell?
After all, Tom ….. all they have to do is paste and copy your work!
Phil
I wish a good recovery for your wife, and I wish you well with this.I don’t know enough about the process to comment.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Worthington from now till the 11th March.
larboulois
And if any of us wee mortals might have downloaded / copied these emails / reports etc. are we obliged to destroy them too?
Just asking . . .
Tom Winnifrith
Larbs
The injunction covers only spartacus,
Naturally I cannot suggest that anyone might wish to download reports and copy the emails or indeed share them with others but were that to happen it strikes me that Mr Earley might find it hard to injunct everyone.
I 100% believe that there is a public interest in seeing these emails and docs expose what Mr Earley, Ware & Whyte have been up to but I would be the last person to encourage anyone to download or copy.
I am sure that you understand
T
Jimbo
Good luck with everything Tom, although like others here, I’m sure you won’t need it.
larboulois
Moi – copy ‘private’ emails and distribute them. Heaven forbid; an appalling thought. Thank goodness you didn’t suggest I upload stuff to any of those Rangers FC sites.
Striebs
Amazing isn’t it that people like that can always find money to intimate others through the court system .
I suppose there is a symbiotic relationship between the legal industry and the miscreants who bring it so much business .
Much like the London Stock Exchange and the fraudsters .
It really upsets me that our political class think the only thing the U.K. has to offer is money laundering and the like because I know different .
Malcolm Stacey
Rock on,Tommy!
hammer69
Tom,
While you’re perhaps relaxing during the hours before service, (small) glass of wine in hand, you might wish to review the below post from 21/02, as I suspect you may not have read through it all given its undoubted length.
It does (eventually) detail a significant contradiction between two of WRN’s RNS issued by Mr Ware and WRN’s 2013 Annual Report ref the Sevco transaction and most particularly the 20m Sevco transaction 5p warrants…..
H69
“HAMMER69
21 February 2015, 21:11
Tom,
A final post to enlighten you – this could possibly be called Market Abuse?
H69
tawnyport 21 Feb’15 – 21:04 – 3889 of 3889 0 0 edit
Law Financial is the key to this train wreck, and I have think I have just managed to open the door.
It all starts with:
i) Acquisition announcement of 17/04/13:
http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/Worthington/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=790&newsid=395040
Pertinent extracts:
“The eventual aggregate purchase price for 100% of LFL will be £1m in unsecured convertible loan notes plus 33.33% of the proceeds of any assets, claims or rights currently owned by LFG or transferred to LFG or Worthington pursuant to the agreement payable in non-convertible unsecured loan notes which may be redeemed for cash at the option of the holder at any time after six months of issue. The Company’s option to acquire the balance of the share capital of LFL is exercisable until October 31st 2013.”
“The Company has also been granted an option to acquire the remaining share capital of LFL. The full acquisition would be subject to shareholder approval and compliance with any applicable Listing Rules.”
ii)Update re Law Financial dated 24/04/13:
http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/Worthington/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=790&newsid=395041
Pertinent extract:
“The Company is pleased to announce that Law Financial Ltd (“Law Financial”), its 26% owned associate, has now entered into a Conditional Fee Agreement in relation to claims that Law Financial, through its subsidiary Sevco 5088 Ltd and separately, has to all of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club (“Rangers”) which were purchased from the Administrators of RFC 2012 Plc by Sevco 5088 Limited, or Sevco Scotland Ltd, in June of 2012.
The principle terms of the Conditional Fee Agreement are as follows:
Solicitors and Leading Counsel acting for Law Financial will share 7.5% of the recently issued and to be issued unsecured convertible loan stock and up to 18.5% of any successful claim in relation to the business and assets of Rangers.”
The next RNS issued by WRN was its suspension for not filing Mar’13 Annual Report.
What does this mean?
Shareholders were told the full acquisition terms were WRN had an option to acquire 100% of LFL for £1m in CLNs (note no mention of conversion price) plus 51.83% (33.33 + 18.5) of the proceeds of claim. If WRN wished to take up its 74% option then shareholders would be asked to approve same.
The next update on LFL was amazingly within the results announcement of 29/08/14:
http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/Worthington/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=790&newsid=441916
Pertinent extract from the CEO’s statement:
“On 16th April 2013, the Company acquired 26% of the shares in Law Financial Ltd in exchange for £250,000 of Unsecured Convertible Loan stock 2020, with an option to acquire the remaining 74% of the shares by 31st October 2013. This option was exercised on 28th October 2013 and the remaining shares were acquired in exchange for £750,000 of Unsecured Convertible Loan Stock 2020. The Unsecured Loan Stock 2020 includes warrants to subscribe for 20m ordinary shares in the Company at an exercise price of 5p each, subject to a share capital re-organisation being approved by shareholders.”
OK, now we learn:
i) LFL deal completed 28/10/13, was not RNS’d and approval was not sought from shareholders.
Not very good, but shockingly compounded by:
ii) Shareholders now advised well after the event that deal terms now no longer envisage also sharing of 51.83% of the proceeds of the claim, but instead mass dilution of 20m warrants to the vendors at 5p.
But it gets far far worse, let’s go to the 2013 Annual Report:
From note 19:
“On 16th April 2013, the Company issued £1m of Unsecured Convertible Loan Stock 2020.”
And from note 22:
“During the period, warrants to subscribe for new ordinary shares in the Company at 5p, subject to shareholder approval of a share capital re-organisation, were allotted as follows and are outstanding as at 30 September 2013:-
No of Exercise Date Expiry
Ordinary Price Issued Date
10p shares
Share placing warrants 2,500,000 5p 06.08.12 06.08.17
Secured Loan Stock holders 2019 (note 19) 2,590,378 5p 28.01.13 28.01.18
Unsecured Loan Stock holders 2020 (note 19) 20,000,000 5p 16.04.13 16.04.18
Directors’ Warrant issue 10,000,000 5p 06.09.13 06.09.18”
The pertinent point that is skewed by the formatting of the table is this:
THE ISSUE DATE OF THE 20,000,000 5p WARRANTS WAS 16/04/13!!!!!
And so to put it in plain English for the uber bulls…
The final terms of the deal, as first advised to shareholders on 29/08/14, had actually been agreed 16 months earlier on 16/04/13, and the CLNs and associated warrants issued on that date.
And yet selective amnesia must have overcome the CEO as the 17/04/13 and 24/04/13 RNS’ made absolutely no reference to the 20m warrants and instead referred to sharing %s of the proceeds (note no mention of these in the 2013 Annual Report).
THEREFORE THOSE RNS’ WERE COMPLETELY FALSE AND ALMOST CERTAINLY DELIBERATELY MISLEADING!!!
Am amazed that this has actually been hidden in plain sight!
How in heavens name WRN’s auditor signed off on this is unbelievable, they have a duty to review all published RNS’, and especially since without an audited Annual Report WRN could not re-list.
If WRN goes tits up, Shipleys LLP should be first in line for a PI claim.
Try explaining your way out of this WRN!!!
NB to ADVFN: Above facts again all sourced from publicly available information!
TP”
The Hump
Not just you he got the hump with… http://presscomplaints.org/case/5123 , You can see from this link what it said, search for Daily Mail https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/tag/wulstan-earley/