Connaught collapsed months after its CEO sold £5.5m of shares
Connaught plc · Social housing services (listed, FTSE 250)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Operating-metric verification
Would have tested contract revenue against work done.
Can mislead when: Contract staff do not appear in EPFO. Vahan access needs licensed APIs. Some businesses have no physical trace.
Bank credits vs books
Would have compared cash with reported profit.
Can mislead when: AA only sees the accounts the company links, so an undisclosed account stays invisible. Cash-heavy businesses and timing differences create false flags.
Governance signals
Would have looked at director share sales.
Can mislead when: Private companies file late, so these signals are lagging. Kubr uses them to support other flags, not to prove anything alone.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Valuation context
Offered in India- C11 Would have looked at director share sales.
Portfolio monitor
Offered in India- C1 Would have compared cash with reported profit.
- C10 Would have tested contract revenue against work done.
- C11 Would have looked at director share sales.
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C1 Would have compared cash with reported profit.
- C10 Would have tested contract revenue against work done.
Model check
Offered in India- C1 Would have compared cash with reported profit.
- C10 Would have tested contract revenue against work done.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.