Yes the Prospectus says 2016. However you would have to expect that the directors had permission from the bond trustees not to do a formal valuation in 2016, that the permission was documented as were the reasons, the assumptions, calculations and criteria for the directors decision, that the auditors examined all that and confirmed directly in writing with the bond trustees that the trustees were in agreement not to have a formal valuation in 2016 and that the auditors, bond trustees and regulators were happy with the conclusion. That is how, as an auditor, i would have expected the process to have gone. It would not be just on the directors say so, especially with something so public and high profile. It is also clear that the auditors were, in their work, challenging whether wasps holdings and wasps finance had met the requirements of the bond issue document. But frankly its old news isn't it.
The reference to falsified information is contained in the 2017 financials and audit report not 2016. My guess is that the falsified transaction took place around June 2017 in an effort to meet the EBITDA provision. Whether it had an impact on any lease valuation done 31 March 2017 i am not sure, as a single transaction in a single year ? when the valuation is based over a number of years. We just do not know. After increasing their audit fee by a factor of 7 the auditors found nothing other than the one falsification. You would think if they did their job properly they would have traced its impact back to the valuation assumptions. The new auditors in 2018 would have also had to check all of the above as it relates to lease value. Again it is stuff that is done and dusted, i havent seen any evidence of any regulatory action being taken by the FCA it must be over a year since Reid made his complaint.
The 2019 valuation. More comment by who? I would suggest that a reportable event would be if the security total drops below the required minimum - it hasnt. There is no requirement for wasps to give detailed narrative that i can see. I accept it is a matter of opinion as to what makes sufficient disclosure but generally companies disclose as little as possible and only in the detail demanded of them by regulation. There may of course be more detail in the financials to be published later this month for wasps holdings & wasps finance. Whether the CT picks up on it or should have i cant answer you would think they might.
The valuation has been disclosed. The disclosure first and foremost is to the bond trustees, but we dont know when any of the valuations were disclosed to them. We dont actually even know when it appeared on the website either. Was it prompt disclosure or not? at the moment i cant answer that.
The charge on the P Shares is a charge over the possible sale proceeds not the share itself. Which means in any insolvency or sale of those shares the bond holders have first call on the cash generated. because is convertible to cash that is why it was included i would think
