George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Members should be looking forward to the Vince Cable & the 3 MP`s meeting today or has "I call the shoots" got more embrassing bomb shells to release for members ? I also voted against the hsg resolutions, I am not lining others pockets.
Bob's famous quote to - “protect shareholder value to the fullest extent possible” ”They must (Directors), however, never lose sight of the fact that they can be guilty of a criminal offence if they: 'make any statement, promise or forecast they know to be materially misleading, false or deceptive'. 'recklessly make (dishonestly or otherwise) any statement, promise or forecast that is materially misleading, false or deceptive'. 'dishonestly conceal any material facts'.
Jut one observation Mr. Pocock 'directors will be guilty if they deliberately induced another person to deal in securities in a company on the basis of false information – or they were careless about what they said and its effect on investor behaviour'
Lol. What about senior managers standing up in meetings stating that sales staff (called cluster meetings in my time) couldn't lose? A lot of us invested at this point. One senior manager in another cluster was James Evans and Scottish colleagues confirmed this. He said no changes?. Or how about the sales staff getting reduced from 680 to 450 after deal and being told nothing about it? One manager in my old region (Newcastle has stepped down as they've had instructions to put everyone on performance management plans to get them out door! Or sales director Andy Chiltern highlighting average time spent to do job is 68 hours per week? Exploitation on scale unheard of. Have the press been made aware of this yet?
"Incentivising whistleblowers, following in the footsteps of Uncle Sam, shows that the UK Government is willing to consider radical steps to tackle illegal practices by big business,". "Rule changes could mean that whistleblowers receive multimillion pound cheques for reporting bribery and fraud."
This guide is based on UK law as at 1st February 2010, unless otherwise stated. 'The need to act fairly between members. This is old law, but remains good under the Companies Act 2006. The private shareholder with a few hundred shares is entitled to the same treatment as the institution with many millions of shares. The disclosure obligations of listed companies make the same point on the dissemination of inside information'.
'As the Board had not determined the bonus for the executive directors for financial year 2012, any bonus agreed will be disclosed in the 2013 statutory accounts'.........we're still waiting Bob
YOU NEED TO BE PART OF THIS GROUP,ITS TO STAND SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE HIBU INVESTORS OR YOU WILL MISS OUT BIG STYLE
I don't keep replying to my posts - I've done it once in the past two weeks (and I can't be bothered checking further back than that) and that was just to correct a confusing typo. "Am interested what you thing Big Bad Bob should have got out of the lenders for the shareholders" That's another question we can't answer without knowing what was on the table. And, re. "Big Bad Bob", it's certainly occurred to me that he and / or other senior board members might have (also!) been the victims of sharp practice and manipulation bordering on the Mephistophelean, but - if so - surely this would have been all the more reason to let shareholders know precisely what happened. Why wouldn't he / they? Professional pride, embarrassment or vanity? Surely you can understand why shareholders aren't satisfied, having been told that they'd look out for us as much as possible only to hear absolutely nothing from them after the "little or no value statement" (which came too late for essentially everyone invested as the SP had already nosedived by then), with a single RNS basically saying sorry but you get zilch and that's all folks. And there is another rather irritating aspect to all this - namely that his haircut makes him look like he's wearing a crash helmet.
Hello Piler you seem to be a bit bored and having to keep replying to your own emails so thought I'd join in. Am interested what you thing Big Bad Bob should have got out of the lenders for the shareholders. You see he had absolutely no bargaining power and was up against much smarter and more aggressive adversaries. It really wasn't a fair fight. Realistically to do an admin pre-pack at the group level will cost less than £1mill so would you have settled for that?
Meant "And I won't buy"!
And another thing - if they really did protect shareholders' interests to the fullest extent possible and there was no funny business involved, why all the secrecy and why the hell are they giving shareholders who wish to see all minutes of the restructuring talks taken the runaround (as detailed in the latest circular to shareholders who've requested access to them)? Personally, if I'd made such a strong statement and had acted in accordance with it and had nothing to hide I'd want a full account of the talks to be readily available to all if for no other reason than to cover my own back. And I won't but any BS about the lenders preventing this through a strict confidentiality clause under these circumstances.
Clabs - obviously not and I was simply pointing out that BW's statement was even more specific and as pro-shareholders as is conceivable. Taking your example up to 50% off could indeed mean 1% off without any contradiction. However, that was such a strong statement that ANY declination by the BOD to pursue any option other than that we're now facing could only be considered not just a contradiction but a grievous one. We don't know (yet) whether there was any...
"to the greatest extent possible". The clue is in that last cruicial word. If you see an ad for broadband offering "up to20Mb" it does not mean that everyone will get 20Mb. If you see an advert for a sale with "up to 50% off" it does not mean everything has 50% off. Thre are so many posts on different boards from "the market is rigged, the price is being manipulated" and messages that anyone with a contrarian view other than the rose tinted must be a paid employee of a boiler house or even daft ideas that members of the BOD post on boards like this. I don't wish to sound rude but comments like that are typical of novice investors who thought there was easy money to be made and who have got burned. I made the same mistakes in my early days of "investing" and it was actually a good wake up call. When you start posting messages like this, you have become emotionally attached to a share or company and emotions and the stock market are very poor bed mates. It doesn't really matter now but the important thing is has anyone here actually learned any lessons from this?
"If you get a message from the BoD stating that ALL stakeholders will be protected to the greatest extent possible" To make maters worse, BW specifically said they'd protect the interests of shareholders, not just stakeholders, to the fullest extent possible. Did they?
"This company has gone the same way as ALL of its European peers. " But I thought the Yellow Pages was without peer? Oh, to have been a sound engineer at the BBC Radiophonic Workshop! Born too late - an ode to integrity!
There's always one or two posters who stick to one thread and post non stop 90%+ negative comments. I see it on PHRM and TLY all the time (tbh I've been a bit negative on Phrm recently but views can change - some posters views never do). Looking forward to this meeting - the vote will be interesting..
KNIGELK is on the finest posters here and I have recommended his post. Therefore, there is no question of being rude to him. You know who is hovering here 24/7 and at the same claims to be here out of curiosity.
I actually think its been a lively debate because Hiibu and the merits of a shareholder action group will be discussed for years to come. I agree since the shares are suspended any comments here will not make a blind bit of difference but since I held the shares for several years (being in and out a few times) and watch them go down and down to sub 1p AND posted on this thread regularly during this time - I'm not going to stop posting - at least not until after the 4th December meeting. TBH this is quite a dormant thread compared to many others which only 5-6 regular posters now so not sure why anyone would get upset? Agree what posters motives are is worth asking but again I repeat any comment will not effect the share price, not effect the votes of the HSG members but will be worth reading gla on future investments
BP The Bar sounds good.........and 'MOT'...........one day we'll be back up in the top flight
Khan - there's no need to be rude about KNIGELK having sold his shares before suspension ;) I'm doing some travelling on business and have too much downtime so it's either this, the Leeds United chat boards or the bar! I'm off to the latter now but keep your chin up. The truth will out and all that. DYOR as they say.
Jumeirah - I am absolutely certain that they have D&O insurance. Still need proof to make a claim though. Thee is a difference between incompetence and negligence. I think they are bang to rights on the former (which is why shareholders should have booted them out long ago and appointed a hard nosed restructuring guy) but the latter is much harder to prove and I don't believe you need directors on the board to investigate. It's simply not going to happen unless there are shareholders out there with cash to front it.
I am surprised, how some people claim that they are here out of curiosity but they feel it is their religious duty to be on this board 24/7 and keep posting messages. Curent BoD are incapable sods and are perhaps now using these boards to puke utter bullocks. If they have have balls then they should bring on administration instead of wasting time here Anybody in their right mind would not say a word against HSG or suffering shareholders unless you are actually on the other side of the fence. By reading last few messages one can imagine who is who here.
KNIGELK - I'm definitely not on the side of the BoD as I think they are a bunch of clowns who have wasted tons of money chasing Pocock's blue sky dreams to be a serious challenger to Google and a whole plethora of stronger, smarter and better financed businesses. They should have read the writing on the wall sooner and run the business hard for cash to squeeze out what they could. The paper debt 'haircut' is meaningless. When the lenders own the company they can choose to leave all or none of the debt on the balance sheet or somewhere in between. This is a balanced approach which shows some deleveraging whilst maintaining an effective tax shield I would imagine. The more important figure is that the debt is priced around 20% of par meaning that lenders really expect to recover around £500 million (and thereby lose around £1.8 billion). Doesn't matter who owns the debt now 'lenders' as a whole have lost this amount. As for the rights issue - I rest my case. Who in 2009 didn't see the end of this kind of business? Obviously the shareholders.
BP I am merely identifying the fact that shareholders can sue Directors for negligence. Based upon information which is already in the public domain we may find that the Directors do have a case to answer. It will be interesting to see if the HSG do decide to go down this route if the company is placed into administration. I personally believe that it is about time Directors of companies are made more accountable for their actions, particularly when high salaries and bonus's are being paid, I trust for their sakes they have D&O Insurance as they may need it.