Company Law Compliance Ltd

  Lo and behold.. On 11th and 12th October one Agency of the Department of Business and Trade states that its records are being amended to reflect the decision of a second  Agency purportedly taken on 19th April that yet a third Agency is responsible for investigating for the now admitted (in writing) criminal conduct of the directors of Quantexa Ltd.  What is the point of the Companies Act 2006 and the about to be enacted Economic Crime and Corporate Transaparency Bill? Will the auditors now resign for signing off on false statements made in Quantexa's very late filed accounts? Their Code of Ethics requires them to. The still unanswered questions: 1. Why did "Quantexa" feel the need to lie about the failure of its Series D and Series E fund raising and never to tell the truth, even in its statutory accounts, that its PR spin was knowingly false? 2.  Is this a common practice across the entire UK FinTech and RegTech sector?  "Who watches the watchers" - apparent

Once more, as with the never completed Series D, the directors of Quantexa are shown to be living in a mythical world of unicorns and once more deceiving the public, their clients and their investors. The records of Companies House show a filing made on 10 October 2023 stating that 109,036 Series E Preference shares were issued between 19 April and 16 June at a price of £733.7 per share. That is an implied total of US$100,000,000 - some 30% less than advertised even if it was true. That simply cannot be the case. The records of Companies House show that the directors had, and still have, no lawful authority to issue any shares. Also if any Series E shares had been issued then the Auditors were required to ensure it was disclosed in the late filed accounts which they approved on 17 July when they knew the statements in the Directors report and Note 28 of the accounts were wholly false and untrue. What does Colin Bell, CEO of HSBC Bank plc think he is doing? His entire background is com