Member Info for addicknt

Btw, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the connection to JCC should have been announced.

Q, if you truly believe Samson are acting for JCC, I suggest you contact the TP immediately and tell them you suspect they're acting illegally.

Q, proof please. I'm afraid your argument makes no sense.

PS, I assumed you'd say that. Two points: why do they need a proxy when they could simply buy the shares themselves? After all, why the need for secrecy now?

Second, the TP pays close attention to takeovers and a major transgression can lead to various forms of punishment including being forced to abandon the bid.

But the key reason is the 'no need to' one.

So, to my mind, there's no conspiracy, merely a hedge fund spotting a potential opportunity with limited downside.

PS, if they were acting for JCC they would have been obliged to release an RNS stating the fact.

It's gambling on a higher offer.

NRL, are you currently watching the meeting?

NRL, thanks for the info. I'm afraid this wasn't made clear to me by HL when I spoke to them a few weeks ago. Oh well, I guess we didn't miss much.

Do you know if we'll have to go through the same process for the SoA meeting?

NMM, PBOW decided not to attend and he's not currently online.

NRL, HL use an external provider to give access. Remarkably, their website stated there was no agm today!

Given the near impossibility of accessing today's meeting, how do they intend to get us to attend the far more important SoA meeting?

NMM, the only agm I can recall which was available online was the fateful Mather defenestration sh*tshow, and I don't recall it being to difficult to do so. So I have no idea why it's now harder to access than MI6's data base.

Because shares held by HL (and most others) are held in nominee accounts and HL has a single SRN, they can't provide it to individual shareholders. In other words, there's no means to identify yourself as a shareholder.

I don't know if this true or not, but that's what I've just been told.

HL can't provide the SRN.

Smick, I agree and some commentary from management would be helpful. I emailed PS before Chrristmas to express my views, but I wasn't expecting an answer and I didn't get one. I would urge others to do the same.

Smick, I can see no reason why work would have stopped. Companies don't grind to a halt just because a bid has been launched.

And who said I think it's OK? If there is info they should release it.

Medi, yes they would be and would be risking criminal prosecution if they were withholding price sensitive info.

I think many things could be said about our management team, but I do not believe they're crooks.

Fort, is it not more likely that the failure to secure any of those key deliverables is the explanation for the Board's recommendation?

Medi, yes, they are.

Fort, those are all valid questions. If the company is withholding price sensitive information they are breaking the relevant TP Rules as laid out in the document and they're also acting in contravention of the Companies Act.

The question is, do you have any evidence to support the claim and how can you force the company to respond?

For those with a longer memory, what we could do with right now is an equivalent of Bruce 'bid 'em up' Wasserstein. His ability to screw value from bidders was legendary.