Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. 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.
Looks like we’re not going to find out who the “asset manager “ is !
OTL
Is the conclusion the 10% is held by at least 4 beneficial owners through an asset manager or that the shares were forward sold somehow so never registered to the asset manager. Or something else? It seems to be the first perhaps but which in the list is the asset manager if so?
That's a first then - putting website information in an RNS.
Seems to me the board wish to show they're meeting their obligations and passing the buck over to the investor, which is where most of the regulatory documentation places emphasis. Again, primarily geared to notification of crossing thresholds.
Sadly, I'm finding researching this quite interesting (but perhaps pointless). AIM regulations support the notification of these transactions. AMC's BVI mems & arts very much reflect Aim regulations. As far as I've got in the FCA's handbook, these requirements are present. There's a section on exemptions for non EEA companies (non European) who may be subject to different laws of their lands.
This one may take me a while to sort out.
Hi GB33,
I'm sure your taking a "while to sort out" will be significantly quicker than RY's "very near future"
Talking of "very near future" where is this, from 22/03/19
"I look forward to providing a more in depth perspective of the strategic partnering plan in the very near future."
Why oh why is everything being blatantly withheld from the company owners ?
The CEO is now coming across as devious and slimy, shocking disregard for LTH who have supported him for many years.
Have to say today’s RNS merely feeds the suspicion that the “asset manager” simply used the speculation around the identity to offload the shares into a rising share price with the tacit agreement of the board, banked a big profit, and now that they have been sold the share price is drifting down with the RNS disclosing no big name holder. If true, a new cynical low for the BoD. Perhaps they should tell us.
The whole thing stinks no matter how you dress it up. And as for the binary - 'either trust RY or sell': Why would anyone lock in losses at a near all-time low? It's perfectly possible to be critical of a company you are also invested in. I'd say it's actually necessary, tbh.