It appears that investors have been mislead by WTV:


5.10 The Committee wishes in conclusion to emphasise the importance of clear
and accurate public announcements and of consulting the Executive when
describing the operation of Code provisions in such announcements. It notes
that the Company's public announcements in December 2004 and April 2006 were
both inaccurate in describing the operation of Rule 9. Furthermore, the
announcement in 2007 did not explicitly make clear, as in the Committee's view
it should have done, the extent to which the 2004 ruling no longer applied.

end.

Does this judgement suggest that the regulators of AIM companies should punish the directors of WTV that ensure investors are compensated for the damage they have endured over the years?

What action will be taken by Hagerty now?

It could be that we could see a flood of legal actions against directors, past and present to right this wrong.

Hello again Bizpack,

Sorry not to get back to you before. I cannot be sure who was responsible for videonewsmanager.com but they have picked up some impressive accounts.

What is also pleasing is that there has been a small rise in the sp on the Jenkins Website but without trades. Hopefully, there will be better news around the corner as far as the minority shareholders are concerned in 2008.

WTV minority stakeholders diluted again if the company is sold for any figure above 10 million and because of a drag and tag clause approved at the AGM - minority holders will be forced to accept it - if the controlling CP do. While WTV state this does not beak the takeover panel rules - I suggest that it seems that it drives a horse and kart through them.

There are also serious issues and answers needed in relation to the sale of Kamera. At the AGM it was discovered that since the sale of 90% of Kamera WTV only owned "B" shares in the company. It has since been sold for a figure that may amount to around $10 million - only a short time after 8% was sold for little more than 1k.

It also seems WTV failed to note this "B" share situation in any accountsor documents as far as I am aware.