General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/2108514/speechly-gbp4m-negligence-claim-betfair-founder?WT.rss_f=Law+firms&WT.rss_a=Speechly+faces+%C2%A34m+negligence+claim+from+Betfair+founder
Speechly faces £4m negligence claim from Betfair founder
Author: Suzi Ring
12 Sep 2011 | 13:30
Tags: Litigation/dispute resolution Speechly Bircham is facing a claim worth more than £4m from Betfair founder Mark Davies and his wife Miranda for alleged negligence and/or breach of retainer for advice the firm gave them when they tried to sell their shares in the company.
In a claim lodged in the Queen's Bench division of the High Court last month (16 August), the couple, who are trustees of the Giselle Davies Family Trust and the Davies Family Trust, which both hold stakes in online gambling company Betfair, argue that that the losses caused by Speechly's advice stands at around £4.48m.
According to the writ, the couple instructed Speechly private client partner Charles Hutton that they wanted to sell their shares when Betfair went public in October last year, with the intention of selling when shares reached at least £13 each.
When the company listed on 22 October, shares were trading at £15.50, at which point Davies was told that selling was not possible because the shares had not been registered properly.
With share prices continuing to fall, the Trusts have not sold the shares, with the price per share standing at £6.08 at the time the claim was issued.
The form states: "Neither trust has sold the Betfair shares given the loss that each would thereby sustain. Insofar as may be necessary the claimants will say that the defendant is liable for the totality of the losses sustained because the defendant's breach of retainer/negligence placed the trusts in a position where they were unable to sell at the price that was available."
The pair are claiming damages and interest. Carter-Ruck litigation lawyer Rebecca Toman is advising the Davies on the claim. Mark Davies resigned from Betfair in July 2010.
Speechly declined to comment.
Speechly faces £4m negligence claim from Betfair founder
Author: Suzi Ring
12 Sep 2011 | 13:30
Tags: Litigation/dispute resolution Speechly Bircham is facing a claim worth more than £4m from Betfair founder Mark Davies and his wife Miranda for alleged negligence and/or breach of retainer for advice the firm gave them when they tried to sell their shares in the company.
In a claim lodged in the Queen's Bench division of the High Court last month (16 August), the couple, who are trustees of the Giselle Davies Family Trust and the Davies Family Trust, which both hold stakes in online gambling company Betfair, argue that that the losses caused by Speechly's advice stands at around £4.48m.
According to the writ, the couple instructed Speechly private client partner Charles Hutton that they wanted to sell their shares when Betfair went public in October last year, with the intention of selling when shares reached at least £13 each.
When the company listed on 22 October, shares were trading at £15.50, at which point Davies was told that selling was not possible because the shares had not been registered properly.
With share prices continuing to fall, the Trusts have not sold the shares, with the price per share standing at £6.08 at the time the claim was issued.
The form states: "Neither trust has sold the Betfair shares given the loss that each would thereby sustain. Insofar as may be necessary the claimants will say that the defendant is liable for the totality of the losses sustained because the defendant's breach of retainer/negligence placed the trusts in a position where they were unable to sell at the price that was available."
The pair are claiming damages and interest. Carter-Ruck litigation lawyer Rebecca Toman is advising the Davies on the claim. Mark Davies resigned from Betfair in July 2010.
Speechly declined to comment.
Show More
Mark is one of the good guys and Betfair's reversal in fortunes can be traced back to the day he left.
not entirely dissimilar to the situation many on here have faced when site failures have left them stuck in a position that's then gone south.
oh, the irony.
oh, the irony.
What if the shares had increased in value in the interim?
and has it really took 10 months to register the shares properly?
and has it really took 10 months to register the shares properly?
not entirely dissimilar to the situation many on here have faced when site failures have left them stuck in a position that's then gone south.
oh, the irony.
That made me chuckle.
oh, the irony.
That made me chuckle.
IF the share price had increased, they would be drinking champagne, but that's just blabla. They pretty much knew why they wanted to sell the shares as they haven't been as foolish as the funds and private investors who signed them up pre IPO. If that investment firm malpracticed, they gotta pay for that mistake, simple as that.
Typical for a former BF founder thinking he can green out on the real world of exchanges when he loses a few million, probably also the same logic that is making new and old customer green out on there future profitability expectations and running to purple.
WHOOOSH ..........SEE HOW THEY RUN.
WHOOOSH ..........SEE HOW THEY RUN.
this article is insane... as read Davies has almost zero chance of this sum... he might get the loss due to any Speechly error, but there is no way it took a year to register his shares / correct any error...
I wouldn't have expected this from someone who built a market
I wouldn't have expected this from someone who built a market
CLYDEBANK29
What if the shares had increased in value in the interim?
That's not the point, though, is it? Surely the claim is centred on the fact that Davies wanted to sell at x price and this was rendered impossible by the negligence of his advisors in not registering the shares properly. No doubt he paid his advisors well for the service, so if they're at fault, they should pay, no?
What if the shares had increased in value in the interim?
That's not the point, though, is it? Surely the claim is centred on the fact that Davies wanted to sell at x price and this was rendered impossible by the negligence of his advisors in not registering the shares properly. No doubt he paid his advisors well for the service, so if they're at fault, they should pay, no?
Surely this is further proof that betfair can only generate bad publicity since 2008 and its glory days have gone in the public eye.
It is for the Company Secretary at Betfair to register employee shares.
According to solicitor they were not registered (by Betfair) so the solicitor could not sell at any stage - there was nothing to sell. Nor could they sell even when registered if the shares were below £13. It was up to Davies to ensure with his employers that his rewards were fully sorted at time of departure. Davies is wholly at fault. No chance.
According to solicitor they were not registered (by Betfair) so the solicitor could not sell at any stage - there was nothing to sell. Nor could they sell even when registered if the shares were below £13. It was up to Davies to ensure with his employers that his rewards were fully sorted at time of departure. Davies is wholly at fault. No chance.
The 1.4 -1.6 billion evaluation for the betfair company was always overpriced and fell off the back of softbanks investment, downhill all the way to 600 million and unless they look at them selves in the mirror with honesty and slim down there going to go the way of most companies that get over-cooperate and flop after a bit of fat catting, historically.
They either get a new tough ring master or send in the clowns.
So why has it taken so long to sue? Couldn't he have done that months ago?
Probably took him this long to find a suitable solicitor to lead him astray.
Reminds me of a silly mate I once had that worked as a security guard delivering cash and used to try and use it as a chat up line, it used to give him some luck though he couldn't follow through and used to scratch his head, and one day he met 2 stret wise girls who when he told them what he did, they giggled a bit in the back of the car and said "what times your drop off", very funny
While it's surprising that any girl would be impressed with the "I'm a security guard" line, it's probably more surprising that you had a mate once. The fact that he was, in your own words 'silly' goes without saying.
ive got hundreds of friends that are always all over me and i cant get rid of them, anyway the nit nurse has give me some lotion so it looks like there going, still got you though[;)]
Well I think I have devalued this thread as far as it will go, please some one save it now i am off too bed.
Don't take me too seriously bf_fananatic. I couldn't resist!
They are not called nits when they are down there BFF and well you know it ;)
another good thread turned to sh!te offtopic nonsense
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539