A serious suspicion that the Publity AG with Thomas Oleg sees itself at the top of the company as exposed, as this investigation then go out, knows at the time nobody. Of course, belly here is the presumption of innocence for the „accused“. The investor information service Kapital Markt Internt from Germany reported first.
While the publity share – despite last eager ’support purchases‘ via ‚Director’s Dealings‘ – remains at a price of 10.50 to 10.70 € and thus lays an annual performance of about – 70%, was recently on 16.10. the subscription right for shareholders in the context of the cash capital increase of publity AG of € 3.781 million. The subscription price per new share was set at € 10.70. Well, who did not access there! At the same time, Thomas Oleks TO-Holding GmbH has „given the undertaking that they will subscribe in their own name to all new shares that are not subscribed by other shareholders as part of the cash capital increase“. Can publity thus avoid a debacle during the capital increase, as most recently with the convertible bond (see ‚k-mi‘ 20, 22, 23/18)?
However, BaFin has confirmed to kapital-markt intern on 16/10/2018 that publity has „an ongoing market manipulation investigation in connection with the IPO“ on the part of the supervisory authorities. According to unconfirmed speculation, the sanguine and callous resignation of Frederick Mehlitz as CFO and KVG director at publity (see ‚k-mi‘ 36/18) u. a. be done against the background of the ongoing market manipulation investigation. Interestingly enough, there are no concrete indications of the ongoing investigation into market manipulation in the publisher’s current prospectus prospectus on the capital increase of 26.09.2018. The prospectus contains only vague hints that „investigations by supervisory authorities“ can lead to reputational damage for publity and thus to further negative consequences.
Irrespective of this, not only (old) shareholders but also publity intermediaries should take a look at the latest securities prospectus on the capital increase. a. in the chapter „risks in connection with legal disputes“. There it says z. „The Issuer is currently being sued by a former Distributor for payment of a sales commission totaling € 47.1 million.“ The Issuer claims to have entered into a verbal distribution agreement with the Issuer in 2009. The Issuer is of the opinion that an agreement with the content claimed by the plaintiff never came about. “ U. a. for the latter reason „no provisions in the amount of the value in dispute were formed“. ‚k-mi‘ knows the background of the case: According to our information, it is a former Kiener K1 agent who relies on Oleks‘ alleged pledges to distribute publity funds. A judgment should be made in October. Even if we can not judge the chances of success of the lawsuit, according to our information the former mediator has at least received legal aid.
However, a further legal dispute could be more substantiated: „In addition, the Issuer and publity Investor GmbH, in addition to other parties, are sued by fund investors for damages arising from a failed investment in the course of a payment and declaratory action. The complaining investors had participated in the closed-end fund NPL Portfolio No. 3 GmbH & Co. KG, in which the publity Investor GmbH was a general partner and which, in the view of the plaintiff investors, was co-designed by the issuer If the claim is that the fund company is suffering from a ‚construction shortage‘ due to violations of the KAGB, what should have been clarified. “ Again, ‚k-mi‘ knows the background: The allegation is that Fund No. 3 was still being distributed without permission after the KAGB transitional period. publity is at least superficially relaxed and claims: „The Issuer, however, believes that such design flaws are not given.“ But we see the outcome of this procedure as completely open. Particularly perfidious in this context: In its notorious „Letter ban Reinvestitionsverbot“ publity in 2016, the maue performance of its own NPL funds reasoned that the funds were not allowed to reinvest as planned by the KAGB after 21.07.2013. However, according to the synopsis, the controversial fund NPL Portfolio No. 3 should „invest a total of € 5,640,000 in the acquisition of suitable loan portfolios“ as of 01/12/2013. However, publity has only had a KVG permit since 2014.
