Member Info for Bantham

Rule 2.2(c) in section D2 of the Takeover Code.

Note 1 to this Rule is also relevant as it sets out the circumstances where the Panel must be consulted.

That’s it from me - as you say, i know nothing. Just a sad little PI :)

Look - the media didn’t pick it up in more detail because it wasn’t true. Every financial / M and A journalist would have followed this up over the weekend with their sources to test whether it was true. And none did anything apart from repeat the original rumour. Because they all worked out there was nothing to it.

The M and A journalists also know the Takeover Code - as do i. So they know that no RNS on Monday = no substance to the rumours. In fact they also know that THG could have ( and should have ) used the news wires on Friday evening to make an after hours announcement - if it was true . So most worked out by Friday night that this was unlikely to have legs. Anyway - by 7am on Monday they all knew there was nothing to see here.

And that’s why you had a little spike of premium buying first thing Monday from ill-informed PI’s and then the price dropped off.

And if you still don’t get it, ask yourself why the M and A Arb Hedge Funds didn’t take up positions on Monday. Strange when there is so much upside on offer.

And if you still don’t see it - there’s little more i can say.

And the reason i am commenting is i find this stock / situation interesting. I bought a bit a few weeks back and then sold entirely at a small loss. And i thought you guys might be interested…..

Poker chips - if you want to think that, that’s up to you. On this particular issue i know what i am talking about. And anyone can read Rule 2 - where it’s set out very clearly.

Anyway - that’s really my point - the power of wishful thinking.

End of public service broadcast :)

Taverham - that’s my point. It’s not about reading a situation. It’s about fact.:The rules simply do not allow a Board to do that. When there are rumours like we saw, the Panel will call the company and its advisor and require a briefing. If there is any substance to the rumours they will require an immediate ( and i mean immediate ) announcement. There is no alternative to this - with serious sanctions for the Board if they did not do so. A quick look at Rule 2 of the Takeover Code will inform you.

It’s fascinating to see people here still hoping for a bid when there was no RNS yesterday. Even the most basic understanding of the Listing Rules relating to false markets or the Takeover Code relating to announcement obligations when rumoured deals are based in fact shows that there have been no discussions or, if they were, they are not continuing. This is simply a fact.

And yet wishful thinking keeps hope alive.

As i said yesterday - what this may have done is put a floor under the price - because it reminds people a take-private is always a future possibility. So the risk of holding these shares may have been reduced. But that’s about it.

Thank you

Out of interest what is his twitter nonsense? Does he post more trash on AEG? Can you provide a link? If his analysis is as poor as his posts here it would be interesting to see it and hopefully have a chance to comment.

RB - what a silly post. When you re-read in the am you might be embarrassed.

If Gravendonck ‘ wants out’, as you appear to know, then he was very badly advised to sell a small block and lock-up the vast majority of his holding. And i doubt he is a fool. So a more reasonable interpretation is that he wanted some cash but was a price taker as he was selling illiquid stock on the back of previous ad hoc sales. And he was perfectly content to be locked-up on that basis. Honestly - it just needs a bit of common sense.

The rest of your stuff isn’t funny or clever despite the effort you have put into drafting it.

The only thing we can be sure of in one year’s time is that you will still be drafting feeble stuff like this.

Could you explain what you mean here please Stifler? I don’t understand.

I have been a massive supporter of this company until the last couple of months.

But i am afraid it’s difficult to disagree with PF’s analysis on current failure at Lumberton. Lumberton, after all, was the basis of the investment case. Now one can hope that it all comes good. I most certainly hope so. But as things stand it’s difficult for an objective observer - and a relatively large investor - to disagree with his first 3 paragraphs. I wish it were otherwise.

There’s a difference between a gamble and an investment made having taken a view on reasonable information provided by the company and your own informed judgements.

The share price rose previously because the BOD put out specific information about an order and their timetable to meet that order. You could buy or sell based on that information and the subsequent price.

Now no-one has any idea what’s going on. Therefore to buy or to sell is just a gamble. There’s nothing smart about buying or selling. In actuality, probably the only rational thing is to sell because you are faced with a company who refuses to disclose anything helpful and has a history of failing to meet its promises - a habit I thought had been consigned to history. And I say this with regret as I still have a considerable holding.

Seattle - you will know that i am generally very supportive of what the company / MR has achieved.

However, you must see that recent communication has been terrible. The Board painstakingly built confidence and then incinerated it in a few weeks.

As things stand now no-one can make an educated judgement whether they will meet their contract or not nor what the implications might be of missing the date. I disagree with you that they have no alternative but to say ‘ we have confidence in completing the prefer’. Their obligation is to inform the market as best they can. And in that they have completely failed.

So - you have bought some shares. And i have sold shares - never having sold below 1.25 previously. But there is no good basis for buying or selling. It’s just a gamble based on nonsense information. And I find that simply unacceptable - either lazy, incompetent or intentionally misleading. And i think the Board as a whole should take responsibility for that. I intend to do my best to ensure that happens - not as a personal matter but simply to get the Board to treat the shareholders properly.

There is a further question of competence.and transparency. Why did they change the design when they must have known the regulatory consequences of doing so? This question needs to be answered. If it was simply unnecessary then this really is gross incompetence. If it was necessary - why wasn’t the market informed - that created a material risk to the contact timetable that we have now seen crystallised.

You are right. Foresight has been scarce.

But if you consider the most recent announcement on licences: first - there is clearly a problem . That much is clear. But then there are heaps of unanswered questions. Why did they change the component if they knew it impacted the license ??! What is the status of the machine otherwise? Can it be run and tested or not? Whats the process for knowing whether the license is updated? How long does the machine is commissioned are you confident in switching it on to manufacture the pellets? How long does it take to manufacture the pellets for the order? Is there some flex in timing for the Pacificorps contract. These are a few obvious questions which could have been addressed. Had they done so, confidence would not have collapsed as badly.

What this Board has achieved is to make it impossible right now to make an investment decision. Buy or sell - its a gamble either way based on zero information. But the only hard fact that is clear to everyone is that this Board is not competent - and the NEDs have failed in this very basic requirement. As have the Advisors who have about as much foresight as a brick.

The company made tremendous progress a few months ago with the contract, the convertibles converting and the Placing. At last we had strategic clarity, cash and confidence.

Everyone understands issues arise and have to be dealt with. But the quality of AEG’s communication has been so poor on every occasion that in the space of a few months it has incinerated confidence through its own actions. I find this the most annoying thing about this - much of it is self inflicted.

The Board as a whole have to take responsibility for this. The Chairman and the NEDS should have been absolutely focussed on communication. They have clearly failed. I think the NEDS should consider their positions - including the Chairman. Rather than awarding themselves share options - for what exactly? - they should have been doing their day job.

Precisely Stifler. Who knows what that means and the implications of it.

The issue is that this RNS - like so many recent one’s - is badly written and fails to address the key questions. My assumption is they can no longer start manufacturing until they have the new permit. And it looks like they are changing their design again. Is that right interpretation or not? I don’t know for sure. That is just plain useless and acceptable . If that interpretation is correct then how on earth can they be confident they will meet the deadline? You cannot be confident of something that is outside your control but which, by your own voluntary foolish actions, you have put in the hands of a regulator. I have drafted many RNS’s for public companies. To me- this is simply not an acceptable level of disclosure. If someone has a very clear interpretation I would love to hear it.

I would love to agree with you as i have a significant investment. However, currently there is no reliable information regarding AEG’s ability to produce coalswitch and meet its deadline for delivering the product to its first customer. Therefore any investment decision today is no more than a gamble. I have sold some today - not because i have a view on value - it’s impossible to have a view on value either way - but because i am over-exposed to something where there’s no basic information on which to form a view. Sad to say this after many years of investment, but that’s how things stand right now.

The Board are responsible as a whole. I am a longterm holder and have always bought on weakness historically. I own many millions of shares. I have decided to sell some just to reduce my cash exposure. I hope this will still play out ok. But the problem is that with zero Board credibility this is now simply a gamble - there is no good information on which to base an investment decision. It’s a great shame - to put it mildly.

I am afraid it reflects a total lack of confidence in AEG’s ability to deliver on its promises and the most disastrous communication over several months that i have ever witnessed as the company shoots itself in the foot time and time again. Who knows what will be delivered / if and when.....? I am actually amazed.

The suggestion here is that they remain on track. But all credibility has evaporated. The market just doesn’t believe this stuff anymore. The NEDS haven’t got a clue. The Chairman should consider his position to start with followed by the rest of the NEDS who have presided over this level of incompetence.

I cannot believe that the Board - which only a few months ago proved itself to have a working commercial strategy and a smart financial strategy - has incinerated its credibility in a few weeks. Incomprehensible.

There are now just over 5 weeks before the deadline for coalswitch delivery. The original announcement of that order was clearly immensely price sensitive. By definition, any material change in the Board’s expectations in its ability to meet that deadline would also be price sensitive.

Last week i posted as follows:

‘At some stage the company must have an obligation to inform the market whether AEG is in a position to meet that deadline or not given the price sensitive nature of that information. Specifically - there must be a clear obligation if there is a material risk it is going to miss the deadline. From the outside in - I would suggest that the time for the Board and its Advisors to make that judgement must either have arrived or be imminent.’

Another week has gone by. The NOMAD must be aware of the Board’s responsibilities to ensure that price sensitive information is released to the market at the earliest possible moment. I hope that they are doing their job. One must assume they are. If not, there will be some serious questions to answer.