We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
It depends on who wins. If there is an outright winner, the loser should pay the costs. If there is no judgement, the people are responsible for their own costs.
But surely in a roundabout way it had everything to do with the BoD changing vote and UGC. I mean why else would everest stick their nose in. By the way who pays the court injunction and the court contest.
Nothing to do with Prosperity yesterday Dark knight 2020 yesterday was about Everest.
DarkKnight 20/20 Nobody won, nobody lost. its a stalemate at moment. Another meeting to be arranged. So in the meantime the new board are allowed to stay in. For Now.
Fully agree,and I also not happy about the boardroom shenanigans and the dirty games to get control of a company that otherwise got everything going well atm....HOWEVER this is out of our control and the only thing we can do is try and make the most of it( I stress the point on TRY....)....and of ourse cast our vote accordingly when given the option.
Well I'd rather a steady build based on the fundamentals, GP and good management but yes it could be interesting.
Let the battle for shares commenc ....will do good to the SP....I actually added few 2 days back and will watch the big boys fighting to increase holding ahead of the up and coming voting....
GLA
"The Judge, Mr Justice Mann, found that Everest's complaints regarding the appointment of the Temporary Directors are arguable but declined to determine its application summarily and a full hearing of Everest's application will now be required."
"As a result, pending the outcome of a futher hearing on the application, the date of which will be set in due course, the Temporary Directors will remain as temporary directors of the Company, subject to the terms of a revised order by the court which is expected to be delivered later today."
(Sharecast News) - A Petropavlovsk investor has called a shareholder meeting to remove Peter Hambro and four other directors installed in a boardroom coup.
The Russian goldminer said it would hold a meeting at the request of Everest Alliance, which holds about 5% of the company's shares.
Everest wants Hambro, Alya Samokhvalova, Johnny Martin Smith, Martin Smith and Angelica Phillips to leave the board. Everest has proposed two new directors and wants four current directors to be kept on before the meeting. It also wants any director appointed since 9 July to be removed until the meeting.
Everest's move followed a court hearing requesting the directors' removal and is the latest round in a convoluted battle over control of Petropavlovsk. On 30 June the board accused its biggest shareholder, UGC, of acting in concert with other investors to oust executive and non-executive directors and instal their choices.
The original board said UGC, run by Russian billionaire Konstantin Strukov, had indicated it would vote for the existing directors, leading to a low voting turnout by independent shareholders who would otherwise have backed the original board. The result was that UGC and the other investors took effective control of the company without paying a premium, the original board alleged.
Petropavlovsk said it received Everest's requisition shortly after Thursday's court hearing. "The company confirms that a notice convening the [general meeting] will be sent to shareholders in due course," it said.
Ahah latest RNS states that Judge didn't reach a determination and Everest should represent. So Everest failed to convince the judge and swiftly called for the EGM. Get your votes in!
well we are almost 27p...
That's my take TLTL but strange they didn't RNS the court result. This could be wildly optimistic but could we see a battle for shares between the two sides in the build up to the GM?
Ok I will be voting against Everest and UCG. Since they have not stated their intentions.
It seems that the old BOD lives to fight another day as Everest have had to call the EGM- can we assume further resolutions to appoint other Directors will follow with the EGM notice? 7 days notice? Start counting the votes again but if you are a Pav supporter this could be seen as a positive development.
Is this reading that prosperity got their way yesterday?
As detailed in the Company's announcement dated 6 July 2020, the Temporary Directors will step down from the Board at the conclusion of the General Meeting requisitioned on behalf of Prosperity Capital Management.
Is this confusing or what,?? Any clever person able to decode the rns ?.did the old board win or lose ?
I think this implies that the freeze has been released. Two more directors would give CABs Everest and UCG control of the board. I think it will now come down to the votes.
I don't know, can't find anything on him - he seems to hide his light under a bushel (sorry couldn't resist).
So am i , so who are the 2 directors that they have put forward are they from everest
Not sure Freddie, why haven't we heard about the court hearing first? Everest wanted the court to have them thrown off the Board so perhaps the fact that it is going to a GM means that they didn't get their way? I admit I'm confused....
What are the views of the latest rns does it mean everest got what they wanted ?