We are on a very sticky wicket here. Sugru's 2017 Crowdcube raise told investors that a debt facility was in place. No ifs and no buts - it was secured.
If that is the same facility that after the Crowdcube £.15m raise, fell through and which led to this situation, then the facts used in the Crowdcube pitch were very misleading - if not negligent. Does the FCA have the powers to check this. Are you kidding.
Come on Sugru and Crowdcube lets be having some real facts here - no more crocodile tears and no more PRing, please. Investors have lost £5.5m; the least you owe them is honesty.
Surely someone could take legal action over this directly with the company?
ReplyDeleteI'd be up for a class action if there is any evidence of misinformation.
DeleteIf there is proof then maybe?
ReplyDeleteThe poor guy who invested 1,000,000 in 2015 ...
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence of a breach of banking covenant is there? The pitch is very clear on this, it's there. I'd like the forum comments to be reinstated as well because there probably was a section on funding. Any undisclosed breach would be withholding material facts.
ReplyDeleteI'll try that again. The evidence of the breach is in the filed accounts for YE Dec16. It states there has been a breach on page 30 of the notes. As these accounts were not filed until Dec17, Crowdcube investors in round 2 would not have had access to this information. There is no indication what the breach was but it resulted in the loan from Clydesdale being put into current liabilities. It seems unlikely that these facts were not known to Sugru and or Crowdcube in March 2017. In the 2017 pitch, Sugru on Crowdcube, clearly states that they have secured a bank facility for £4m from Clydesdale. It was the collapse of this loan (or the second tranche of it) that implemented the panic sale.
Delete