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.
Yes he also asked two more questions, but was told it was not part of the AGM. It didnt sound like a good relationship. Can anyone rember what thoes question were ?
At the end of the phone-in on dividend policy a Bank of American analyst asked how POG could have arranged an interim BOD when main vote was against. He didnt get an answer. I'm also confused on that, but we'll find out Monday.,if it is legal. I guess it will be allowed as only temporary. If not then Maxim Kharim will be main Executive director. Hope it all works out for an EGM to be held ,and all points of view explained.
rustybucket
I think resolution 19 (a 1.1bn share issue) may relate to the convertible bonds. I think resolution 20 (a 2.2bn share rights issue) may relate to the 2022 bonds. I sort of understand why they felt they might need the authority of resolution 19 now - they don't in theory know when the bond holders will convert. I don't understand why they need the authority of resolution 20 in the coming year, since the 2022 notes don't mature until ... well 2022.
Apart from the fact that implementing resolution 20 would further advantage the shareholders who own convertible bonds - the bonds pick up their rights allocation FOC - losing the Temi share issue vote should have sent a clear message to the board - no more share dilution. So what do they do? Put 2 resolutions into the AGM to double the number of shares in issue.
Stupid!
Working stiff, what if those resolutions relate to convertible bonds, and possible purchase of remainder of TEMI and I know a possible rights issue has been mooted ( all speculation and I don't know I haven't seen the full info on these ) And to be honest most companies ask for shareholder approval although very few use them.
If I can take your comment in two parts
1 I think there will be an EGM and a re-vote.
2 I think the horse trading I referred to will be around who stands for election at the new vote. UGC and Co might say that Pavel does not fairly represent the interests of all shareholders. They might point to resolutions 19 and 20 (the share dilution resolutions) as examples of that. I think some of the institutions might agree with them. So although we may be voting again soon, it may be for different people - compromise candidates.
Lawrence13, if the radical changes to the bod had been released earlier, it would have given the board the chance to respond. I believe there was an RNS at 7.00 am advising of the results.
There was a question and answer session, which I listened to and commented on at the time, but, in the circumstances, I found very timid, and there were very few questions.
I believe the vote was done to cause maximum effect, bearing in mind only months earlier they had suggested they were going to be supportive. At the AGM They did say they were going to have active dialogue to try and find out what the issues are.
In Peter Hombres defence, there was a question at the AGM from a personal investor, which was not allowed because it was the AGM. Peter offered to personally ring the person after the AGM to personally answer the question.
They did seem a bit shellshocked,
Sorry 'your opinion' not 'our opinion'.
So there will be in our opinion no re-vote . I guess there's two things here: one the manner and shock of the BoD dismissal and replacement and secondly the proposed dilution of the shares which would leave us with a much lower SP. But surely those major shareholders will suffer as well if this is the case, unless given more shares for nothing
It's the key issue I think (hope?). As Aimtitan says below Renova gave notice of their opposition to the board in May 2017. In 2020 UGC didn't give any prior notice of their opposition to Pav & co as far as I'm aware.
I'm blown about by the wind a bit on this issue. But my feeling right now is that the temporary directors will remain in place after the court hearing on Monday. However, I think there will be "horse trading" between Monday and the EGM, and we may end up with a new board.
That's another issue: Shouldn't such radical proposed changes to a BoD be tabled way in advance of the AGM. So when did the previous BoD receive the resolution proposing to give them the elbow? Was it at 11am when the AGM opened and the phone in monitoring failed? Now that was very odd
Are there stock exchange rules on voting regarding such radical BoD replacements. For example can a 1% majority pass the resolution, or does it have to be a certain ratio
This crew were a bit sneakier than the 2017 usurpers. There was no advance warning of their opposition to Pav and co.
Four investors representing 39% of shares tabled a resolution for the AGM wanting to oust the old board and install their own people. They won the vote as there was only 73% turn out. So essentially they did all the right things. However the turn out being low at 73% meant they won the day by 7%. Many of us say we never received any voting options but even if we had we are too small to have changed that vote. So my next question is who didn't vote and why?
At the end of the day though, I can't see what the usurpers did wrong?