Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth 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.
SXX and AAL offer
Dear Mr John2015
Thank you for your email.
We are currently awaiting the official Scheme of Arrangement document to be issued regarding this potential takeover.
Until the official document has been published we will not able to speculate on the proposal.
Once the document has been issued we will write to our clients outlining the details of the scheme, our clients options and how to submit your instruction with us.
We are yet to be informed as to when this document will be published.
Please rest assured that will be in contact in due course once we have been provided the official details of the scheme.
If you have any other questions, please do let me know.
Kind regards,
Tom Redmayne
Active Savings & Investment Helpdesk Consultant
Hargreaves Lansdown
The BOD, HMG, AA and shareholders were playing poker.
Shareholders looked at their hand and saw that they had 4 x kings so went all-in.
The BOD and HMG had nothing so folded.
AA had 2 x aces. HMG slipped them a third. Seeing this, the BOD slipped them a fourth.
So close but no cigar.
OR
*wife will
Speak to your account holder when the information becomes available. Your will will be able to vote by proxy ahead of the meeting.
Is it at all possible to pass on your instruction to vote, to someone who will be attending the meeting? Just out of curiosity. I will be attending and am intending to vote on what I hear then. I want more information provided on what the other possibilities were before this Avenue was explored. I and my wife have quite a few to vote with between us. I was just wondering if I could attend and use the wife’s votes without her attending? Also if PIs want to be represented and use their votes in conjunction with someone who is attending how difficult would this be? Any ideas please.
I'm not contesting the requirement to provide a guarantee to 'reinstate' or for 'S106' responsibilities, but simply whether that be by way of £50m being 'ring fenced'.
Planning documents show S106 monies are to be held in escrow, so this is pretty clear. There is however no such clarification on the reinstatement, just that a guarantee of such needs to be provided.
I don't required proof. I simply queried on what grounds the company had 'ring fenced' this money, and on what basis they think they could do so, and avoid other (such as administrators, liquidators, and other creditors) having a genuine entitlement to a share of it.
My comment is, that unless legally bound, a company cannot itself simply 'ring fence' or 'allocate' a pot of money for certain activities/companies as in the event of administration/liquidation any such thing would be deemed a 'preference' and recovery sought.
Maybe its all semantics, but there is still nothing I can find, or seemingly yourself also that shows Sirius need to keep £50m in its account, or in a SVP to such a need. I would personally have expected the company to have provided a bond for such a matter, which would be more the norm in construction.
Banks rob people, but at least they are open about it.
Romanes ite domum.
590,872,800
8.417%, now the largest II of SM
Yes, they went from short to long and accumulated 590m shares in a short period of them, mainly from PIs, I guess.
Now have, as of yesterday - 0 to 590,872,800 CFD’s - in just over 26 days...
Yes no relief in an isa. No advice intended. If holdings are not in an isa and the number of trades are numerous then could argue that its a trade and not CG, losses set against other income [paye] in current year, carry loss back previous year and set against all your income. If a new business in trading shares , if loss occurs in any of the first four years of trading you can set it against your total income of the three immediately before the loss, starting with the income of the earliest year first. Seek profn adviser.
Not sure asking for evidence of 'ring fencing' in relation to the £50m for 'filling in' can be deemed as burying my head in the sand.
I prefer to deal in fact, rather than in speculation/assumptions. I have stated I believe you may be right, but simply have found no such evidence within the planning documents to back this up, hence asking yourselves who seemed so certain. However, to date, you haven't been able to evidence it either.
Suckitup - so many possible reasons,
TO party often scoops markets via their representatives (very similar to order filling by MMs)
someone reserving/buying voting more power..
competition buildup (counter-offer/bidding wars)
just some PI's hoping for any other outcome or simply being irrational.. etc.etc..etc...
Why are people buying shares above the 5.5p offer price? ... are they still praying for a new offer before the deadline?
hobo - please double check references/links by Myo , it has site with all local gov permits (mining, etc.) issued to sxx with detailed conditions, is simple terms - no ring-fencing -> permit invalidated = no sxx
IBAB. So to clarify, you have no idea whether it is a legally requirement. Thank you for confirming.
I am not saying you are ultimately wrong, but referring to comments written in the media is hardly the basis of legal substantiation. I myself have (quickly) gone through the planning documents and could not see such a requirement for these funds, only reference for the S106 funding to be treat in such a way, and placed in escrow.
'Suspecting' is great, but not legally enforceable.
As such, could yourself or IIBAB simply refer me to where is has been made a legal requirement of the company to 'ring fence' the referenced £50m for filling in of the holes upon failure of the project. Much appreciated.
I suspect it's part of permit conditions.
IBAB.
So are you able to answer the question..... ? Is it a legal requirement imposed upon Sirius that these monies are 'ring fenced', and if so could you refer me to where this is documented please.
Is it 5.5p or nothing?
Can we go higher 25k down
hobo, yep as calamari says "...There is no creditor and no contract regarding these funds until after administration..."
these are firmly sitting in long-term minimal risk assets frozen somewhere in gilts
So, that begs the basic question;
Are Sirius Minerals PLC legally obliged to ringfence an amount of monies in the event of project failure. If so, where is this documented ?
A legal requirement is much different from just doing so of their own accord.
well if you believe that calamari you can go play somewhere else can't you !
but then again ...............