Member Info for big-blue

"However, if the departures were to relate to any of the current(?) conspiracy theories I would have expected them to be gone before 22nd September not afterwards. Just my two penneth."

Boardroom tussle, the share certificate proposal squeezes through with a bit arm twisting, boardroom politics and so on. There has now been a week of public exposure and the opportunity for iis to comment to the company. The resignations of course could be related to a heap of other things. However, with such a big proposal and consequences that may only have become apparent after sleeping on it, it is likely this is related to the certificate proposal.

Face saving withdrawal of the proposal? Since only half of the sanctioned holders might benefit, the proposal is deemed not to be equitable as no proposal is in place for the other sanctioned holders and therefore is withdrawn whilst a policy benefiting all disenfranchised sanctioned holders is found.

The boardroom war. I suspect since the Putinphiles are not jumping all over the board this morning, these were anti split supporters. To have to walk the plank definitely implies some degree of misconduct and the reference 'corporate governance' tells me the methodology and overall plan for this certificate swap and associated simplified voting option is the root of the resignations.

If they were pro split and pushed out then they have failed to serve the cause and may have damaged the company so much the split doesn't happen consigning the company to a death spiral existence as it tries to keep raising money to survive ever increasing debt and shrinking markets for its product. Few buy into toxic assets as the exodus from Russia by business demonstrates.

"I am very grateful to Giacomo and Riccardo for their valuable contribution to the company’s development and corporate governance. "

Pro splitters bumped off the board? Anti-splitters outed for trying to rig the split vote?

Interesting reference there, "corporate governance". Given the special vote on a dodgy certificate swap policy, there is something going on there. And with immediate effect.

Will the certificate swap proposal now be withdrawn??????? Or is the vote already counted (the result is 98% in favour in case you missed it)??????

To all of you who mocked me for posting questions you labelled as irrational conspiracy, I'll look forward to your attempts to explain why the sudden resignations and what this curious reference to "corporate governance" is all about.

"corporate governance" is a message to the market. I suspect a positive reaction from the markets as this, to me, looks like a significant intervention to keep POLY in line with LSE and send a message to FCA to avoid investigation. I believe I was right in raising concerns.

yes investor 6, you're instinct triggers a combatative response. Now if I remember my psychology abc's, tgat means you're rational processing recognises what I speculate is a very real world scenario.

By now more and more like you are wondering just how far the west will go before it breaks. And you know all to well, by 'breaks' that does not mean crawling on all fours begging Putin for salvation on any terms.

It means the big war actually going ahead and a nato world/coalition going into Russia heavy.

It is a fear you lot have, you know the west will never stand down and now you see Russian massively escalating this towards one and only one outcome.

We'll take you out within months and hold you under occupation for a generation. Tge world is tired of Russia and the constant trouble. It is getting close to the time...

"a couple of moths to place Russia under occupation"

well it was a typo meaning to say months, but then again.....

The sabotaging of the pipelines. The point has been missed that this is part of a campaign to stop all gas flow and cripple Europe and not as a bargaining chip. That means the gas links from Norway to the UK will also be attacked. Russia is behaving as a straight forward terrorist state. Previously is was all about suspending supplies. Now it is about terminating all supplies to damage as far as possible Europe and the UK.

On that basis, Russia will have to be stopped and therefore war will inevitably be declared on Russia. We know the great army is a useless circus of clowns and all the bravado of an army to be feared was all talk. It will take a mater of a couple of moths to place Russia under occupation. This is the trajectory.

Has Russia announced the results of the SGM vote on certification already?

98% in favour?

Wait a minute..........

you prove my point,

thank you

huh? yui mean only preferred options are on the card.

I'm clearly hitting a nail very squarely on the head here!

Response to the questions? Filter him, ban him, ignore him. Yep, there is definitely something dodgy going on here.
As my money here is a wild card punt I'm not going to be spooked out, it's kinnda fun rattling the cage and watching all the monkeys dance around in a panic.

I turned over a stone, and what do we have crawling around under it? Was this supposed to have been hidden in full view? Well it failed. How long before the FCA starts asking the same questions?

"Why would a large shareholder use a nominee account when they can arrange directly with a broker for certified shares? You haven’t answered that question."

You tell me, this is not a question for me to answer. If they can arrange directly with a broker, why is POLY getting involved? Why is POLY trying to arrange by force it seems, holders to become certificated when, so far to date, they have not changed to certificates of their own free will. Now if the company was advising people caught up by sanctions to do this, then there is a choice, but to push this through as a policy the company will force on people simply amplifies the questions surrounding this.

"However, whether this comes into force depends on the outcome of Brexit negotiations, "

Try posting an up to date article!

I can't refer to the country ****stan, but I can refer to skull buggery. err....?

Interesting. When the answers to the question simply educe to insults and 'sell up' fallback, then there is clearly a case to pursue.

Maybe my broker, iweb, is slow off the mark, maybe I will receive an invitation to vote and indeed there is no skull buggery involved on trying to get the proposal in place.

Naturally, even with a full free open vote to all holders, there is the matter of the consequences of the policy - unless guarantees and clarification that the vote to split the company will be under a corporate action and/or other contact device to low all LSE and MOEX holders to vote.

"If your a large shareholder why would you need a nominee account? "

So what kind of account do they hold their shares in now? If not nominee, then why the need to have the company facilitate a switch to certificates? Why are the holders not doing that themselves? And what about the 11% left behind? Why is this being pushed through when it only applies to 50% of those caught out by sanctions?

"Feel free to come back with an "I told you so" if your conspiracy comes to pass, but until then, maybe cease banging this drum?"

This isn't Russia. People who disagree will counter and argue as and when a challenge is presented. We don't do the convenient policy of ordering people to shut up and go away.

If the proposal was to commute shares to certificates, move those certificates to a new nominee account on behalf of those 11% so that all holder rights remained in parity with all other nominee holders, then that would be acceptable. But on what basis are these people to be left with certificates? Why is there no proposal to set up a nominee account for them?

Any one else notice the overt campaign to push people and 'nudge' people with templates to vote for the certificate swap? These are the exact same people who are also trying to deflect and obfuscate the voting balance change at GMs this certificate vote will create. And even more incredible, by a statistically impossible coincidence, these same people advocate keeping POLY tied up with toxic assets objecting to a split and espousing fantasies about everything going back to pre war as soon as Russia wins the war, the mythical Nazis are eradicated and Zelensky is hung in Red Square!

The conversion to certificates of 11% of holders is a tactic to stuff the ballot box at the SGM to vote against the split.

This will end up in the courts, the FCA will get involved and we all may end up with a share suspended for 6 months whilst investigated. If I, a basic arm chair casual retail punter can see what is going on, then so can the authorities. This is not Russia, this sort of behaviour is not the routine. This is only going to lead to trouble.

Hopefully the votes from iis will kick this crappy proposal straight out.

and a post like that anon prives to me there are a few nervous people worried something that was supposed to sail by unnoticed is getting a but too much unwelcome attention.

I smell a rat!

confirm then alterego, you have retail shares in a nominee account.

Again, you keep ignoring what I actual ask and keep repeating common rules or copying and pasting details that do not address what I ask. The persistent attempts at deflection makes he alarm bell ring louder!!!

For the vast majority of GM resolutions, your average retail investor is not interested. However, if there is something out of the ordinary and especially if it requires a special meeting, in order to ensure shareholder participation a corporate action which allows contact with all the shareholders regardless of certificates to take part. Indeed, one of the points made in arguing for this certification is that not only are these people cut off from divvie payments, but also from corporate actions which are carried by the same sanctioned system.

To chose to limit the voting constituency to a representative secret ballot and not opt for a corporate action is a deliberate choice. Why? Is it to ensure only a particular type of investor with a particular motivation is more likely to be proactive in arranging a vote? Is the apathy factor and ISA factor of the selected methodology to ensure a particular vote?
I have extensive knowledge of voting shenanigans from the GLC, Westminster and the EU. I can spot a mile off when there are tricks being deployed to try and weight an outcome.

Should have been a corporate action and this SGM method opens up the possibility of legal and regulatory attention.