Reference is made to the following two posts and articles,
(i)
https://nevillegafa.com/2024/10/06/ivan-j-bartolo-u-l-frodi-1/
and (ii)
https://nevillegafa.com/2024/10/06/ivan-j-bartolo-l-frodi-u-t-trasparenza-2/
The following constitutes my right of reply, submitted pursuant to Article 15 of the Media and Defamation Act, Chapter 579 of the Laws of Malta.
The posts published on the Neville Gafa blog (herinafter “the Neville Gafa Blog Posts”) claim,or at the very least gives the impression, that I acted fraudulently in relation to the sale of 6PM Holdings plc.
This implication is factually wrong, misleading, and damaging to my reputation.
The Neville Gafa Blog Posts selectively quoted extracts from the article originally published on the Times of Malta online website
https://timesofmalta.com/article/new-6pm-owners-say-2014-2015-revenues-had-been-inflated.660340
(“hereinafter the ToM Article”).
Misleadingly, the NG Blog Posts omit other parts from the same ToM Article which are crucial to a fair and complete understanding of the matter in question.
Specifically, the same quoted ToM Article included extracts from an interview which was given by the then-current chief executive of Idox plc, the entity that eventually acquired all the shares of 6pm Holdings plc.
In particular the following extracts, misleadingly omitted by Neville Gafa in the Neville Gafa Blog Posts, not only add context but crucially provide readers with abetter and more accurate understanding of the matter:
“Contacted yesterday, Idox Health chief executive Andrew Riley said it was simply ‘an alignment to match the group’s accounting policies’ and that, in his opinion, there was nothing sinister about it.
‘It’s an interpretation of financial regulations. The advice given to us by Idox advisers is different to that given by the ex-6PM advisers.
We did find accounting errors but nothing of concern. ‘Having spent the money we did on the acquisition, had we found something we were not expecting at the time of acquisition, I can assure you we’ll be doing something about it, but we’re not, and I hope this puts everyone’s minds at rest.”
Furthermore, the Neville Gafa Blog Posts fail to appreciate the complexities surrounding the sale of a company listed on the stock exchange.
This is a highly regulated and complex transaction which involves rigorous scrutiny from multiple parties, including auditors, regulatory authorities and financial advisors.
The insinuation of fraudulent behavior in such a setting not only disregards the oversight mechanisms and processes in place, but also undermines the integrity and the good work carried out by the other fellow directors, whose diligence and professionalism were critical in ensuring the company’s compliance and accountability throughout the years.
The above is to be published in its entirety, without any alteration or comments and with the same prominence as that accorded to the Neville Gafa Blog Posts.
Furthermore, you are required to add a prominent link to this ‘right of reply’ in the original Neville Gafa Blog Posts.
In accordance with the afore-mentioned Act, this right of reply must be so published by not later than the second day following the day on which the request is received.
Any further defamatory posts will not be tolerated.
All my rights are reserved including the right to institute libel proceedings.
