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.
Crocqman...
the comment, reference the 1 trade was what we were referring to. A very fine margin to be calling.
Could be anyone off loading a few today, MMs set their stall out this morning to accumulate...killing sentiment and scaring investors with their "sea of red". i topped up at 0.306 (shown as sell)
No doubt they will change it to a sea of blue soon to make their little bit .
Be patient and wait for the news...
parkez,
Were you/heid referring to the timeline for notification?
I think the holder (CO) has 2 trading days to notify the issuer (ujo) who then has 4 days to inform the market going by the document you posted.
Quite a long thread just to say that someone cannot have been selling down for the past month without making a notification, but don't want to be labelled for posting fake news.
Good that folk on here have knowledge of the reporting requirements.
Time to move on from this technical chat, perhaps?
gla
Makes no difference to what could be in the ground if he sold the bloody lot.Stop scaring yourselves it is embarrassing.Nothing as changed as far as I can see.
Ooh look, Tool's tweets have just disappeared now UKOG is down by more than UJO.
Technically if he is holding exactly 7% you are correct.....but 1 share is a very fine margin, but i get your point.
shareaction, just seen your post.
Yes, that is also technically correct and a possible scenario.
Again, my post was based purely on the 7% holding notified on 3 July and the comment that CO has been selling down over the past month
Clear Tool on the Hill and his mates (if he has any left after their lovers tiff) are tweeting on UJO "sells" to deflect from the fact UKOG is down by a similar percent .
parkez your 11:46 post , correct, that was what I was referring to.
From the DTR guidelines on public disclosures:
"A person must notify the issuer of the percentage of its voting rights he holds as shareholder or holds or is deemed to hold through his direct or indirect holding of financial instruments falling within DTR 5.3.1R (1) (or a combination of such holdings) if the percentage of those voting rights:
(1) reaches, exceeds or falls below 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, 10% and each 1% threshold thereafter up to 100%"
If to be technically correct, anything with a decimal point starting below 7%, so even 6.999999999999999% recurring would need to be reported, so any number of shares sold reducing below exactly 7% - assuming his exact % holding is 7% which it appears to be.
If I have missed anything else, please advise
thanks
After his TR1 3 Jul notifying 7.0000% interest in UJO, CO could have bought an additional 121,075,729 shares without crossing the 8% threshold and without the need for another TR1. Such additional shares he could sell any time without issuing a new TR1.
https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/practical_guide_major_holdings_notifications_under_transparency_directive.pdf
scroll down to page 77.
If CO was in fact selling doesn't a TRI only have to be RNS'd if the % changes
TR1 notifications needed for going below 7% and going below 3% I thought.
" with a 7% holding CO cannot sell even 1 share without a disclosure having to be made."
suggest Heid is referring to this statement, which is not true.
In what way, Heid?
Please can you elaborate if I have posted anything incorrect.
Is it the timing of announcement, amount held by CO, or the notification points for making any announcement?
thanks
I think you need to check your facts there Crocqman.
True Baits.
My response was in relation to a post stating that a TR1 holder has been selling down over the last month.
This is absolutely impossible in line with regulatory reporting requirements - with a 7% holding CO cannot sell even 1 share without a disclosure having to be made.
We will know soon enough if a TR1 appears from CO.
Any TR1 holder who is buying/selling needs to inform the company at any point a reporting threshold is reached in order than an RNS can be issued.
Seeing as no TR1 announcement for CO has been made since 3 July (confirming 7% held), it is impossible that he has sold any shares (unless it is within the last 2 trading days when notice is required to inform the company of the fact so that an RNS can be issued).
gla
Recommended posts baits .
Whaterver CO does it does not alter what we have been told by DB in his interviews.
I would imagine CO will still hold quite a few million shares so why should he stop ramping the share just because he maybe top slicing would you not do the same.I think so.No worries here if that is what he is doing.He will not be the only one I can assure you.
Indeed we do but trumpeting one thing from the rooftops whilst in fact doing the opposite isn't really an m.o. I can say I'm in favour of.
Well don't we all have our m.o. BlakeneyP.
If Chris is selling for a profit , very well done. At the end of the day Chris is a private investor who has put his own money in and can do what ever he likes. If I was him I would be selling some lumps. Pay for his little trip to Monaco : )
GLA