UK 21:27 Saturday, 7 November 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.
From the moment Optimal payments (OPAY) announced that its CFO was standing down last Friday morning the shares have been sliding. That just happened to have coincided with questions being raised here on ShareProphets. Following a second double-digit slide yesterday, Optimal produced the following RNS:
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
alcira16247
Nigel
I looked into Optimal when the Equities First scandal first broke as I understood Paul Scott was still keen on the company.
However, on researching and finding on-line a large number of employee’s and customers posting negative comments on both the company and its neteller product, decided to leave well alone.
Seems like one of my better decisions, even more so given the companies arrogance and silence regarding Mr Leonoff’s transactions
Londonbhoy
“Optimal did make a comment about this issue in its last trading statement, telling us that Mr Leonoff had “entered into the agreement outside of a close period”. But that did not answer the question because it was not made clear whether entering the agreement was when the shares were transferred or when the deal was closed (the day the cash was received, as demonstrated by the SEC contract).”
Really?? I think that statement is clear enough.
I’ve never heard of anyone or company ‘entering into an agreement’ when part of it has already been executed. Flogging. Dead. Horse.
nigel somerville
Londonbhoy,
I think you are missing the point. If EFH can pull out at any time up to when the deal is ‘closed’ (which is payout day) then surely there is not yet a contract. When is the ‘agreement’ in force? On the other hand, in applying for this package, the person handing over the shares has to sign over title and voting rights – so it is a disposal. The language used by OPAY has not been at all clear, as discussed in the linked article:
http://www.shareprophets.com/views/9397/optimal-payments-time-for-more-equities-first-clarifications
If there is nothing untoward, nothing to hide and all is above board then why has OPAY not made an unambiguous and simple statement in response to the question ‘when did Mr Leonoff hand over his shares to EFH?’ It has been asked often enough!
It really is that simple. Answer the question, have it signed off by the Nomad and then we can all relax. Until that happens, the question remains. It has not been answered – it has been responded to, but the information given was unclear. It was obfuscation. Why?
My view is that this is a self-inflicted wound by OPAY. In my view, the board, the Nomad and the exec directors are treating their shareholders with utter contempt. That, I believe, is why the share price has been falling since this all started to come out.
The fact is that since April of this year, the two exec directors of OPAY have been disposing of substantial numbers of shares by value. One (the CFO) was fairly open about it (even if he blamed part of his need to sell shares on the c.£25 cost of exercising options!) and has now been announced to be moving on. The other, who remains in post, has hidden a disposal – albeit with an option to repurchase at a later date – and then bought (a smaller number of)shares in the market at a far higher price than his disposal price. All a bit confusing.
Finally, OPAY is the ONLY company of the six we have identified to have been caught up in the EFH scandal which still maintains that it is not a sale and repurchase agreement – the last statement on that matter was that it was a ‘master loan and pledge agreement’. EFH is a one product company. If, as per the EFH website, the EFH contract posted on the SEC website and the other 5 companies in the UK we have identified, this is indeed a sale and repurchase agreement (which I am convinced of) then why is OPAY trying to twist and spin the truth? Why the obfuscation? Why the opaque statements?
There is no flogging of dead horses here. Not yet, anyway!
OPAY can kill this story stone dead by being (just for once) clear and open. The fact is that they have not been. That, to my mind, is very telling.
N