Member Info for big-blue

How many retail holders have been sent instructions at the companies request to ensure they have the correct facility to be able to vote? Why has no notification been sent? Why is this proposal being put via a meeting and not an online action to ensure all can vote? How many will be prepared to pull shares out of their ISAs to be in certificate form and foot the fees for this proposal? How much of this relies on apathy to sneak an undesirable motion through?

I'm under no illusion identifying the deliberate course of action, and to me, based on the current situation, on the balance of probabilities, the methodology, given the consequences of the proposal on the balance of GM voting, leaves the process open to charges of being corrupt and that encourages the FCA to take an interest.

This should have been done via a corporate action removing any doubt as to alternative motives.

Yup the facts are now well established.

To vote at a GM you need to be a registered certificate holder. You can vote in person or by proxy.

As a retail holding with a nominee account, you can not vote in the GM.

It is proposed about 11% of holders who do not currently have GM voting privileges have their shares commuted to certificates that will then give them voting privileges.

There are no proposals to give all the other non-certificate holders the same voting privileges.

The proposal, to date, is not to be decided by way of a corporate action allowing all holders an equal say.

Those are the facts.

Interesting, the more you try to wriggle a spin explaining away the voting with certificate anomaly, the more you dig the hole deeper. The 11% is not to overwhelm all holders, but instead could be coordinated help to tip the balance for those who do have a GM vote. And as it is very clear, most, if not approaching nearly all retail holders, do not even know of or have the facility to arrange voting since they are not being advised or prompted because this critical proposal is being done by way of a GM and not a corporate action. That alone makes the ears prick up.

And as for voting in a way you say would hurt themselves, we don't know what 'incentives' or 'sweeteners' may have been proposed.

Plain and simple, there are significant voting balance implications with this and it should therefore be made as a corporate action which would allow all holders a vote. Instead it is to be by secret ballot, not even an observable show of hands, at a meeting that will exclude the overwhelming majority of retail holders.

It has 'dodgy' written all over it and the response on here so far just fans the flames - there, there, don't worry your pretty little head about it, it is all big boys stuff and nothing to concern you really. Have a lollipop!

Not all of us were born yesterday. Nor do we have pretty little heads.

Then again I am hopefully wrong and the corporate action message will appear in all our broker accounts and the FCA won't worry their pretty little heads whether a corrupt devious plan was being pushed through to stuff the ballot box over the split.

"Which part of the statement "The certificated shares will have the same rights and ISIN as, and be fungible with, the Ordinary Shares in all respects, including ranking equally for dividends." are you disputing?"

How many of the 11% are held in nominee accounts now? How many of the 11% can vote in the next meeting now? Once converted to certificate holders, as you well know and many are now becoming aware, the opportunity to vote changes in that they will now be able to turn up waving their certificates or appoint a proxy to attend. The non-certificated members can not do that. That is why the usual RNS following nearly all AGMs simply states all resolutions were accepted and the retail investor never had a say.

If this was all so innocent and only about the divvies, why pick a methodology that leaves the other 11% behind, 50% of those declared as stranded?

We know a major decision is up coming on splitting the company, we can deduce from broadcast q&a that there is a boardroom debate and we already know there is extensive corruption in Russian business dealings. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of a corporate action inviting all shareholders to vote, including retail holders in nominee accounts (so far), my conclusion is that a method of developing a significant GM vote, to be delivered by proxy, is being created to skew the vote on the split. For all I know this maybe to secure the split which I am in favour of. But the process must be transparent and seen to be transparent so as to avoid legal and FCA challenges.

You keep trying to deflect the argument that it is all about divvie payments and fail to address the difference in voting privilege between certificate holders and non-certificate holders in future GM.

Thousands are contacting their brokers now expecting to find this mythical voting option you claim exists yet find nothing and some post on here to that effect. Are you seriously suggesting some brokers are providing voting facilities for a GM vote but others are not? And you kind of give the game away as to why you will be voting, you will be in attendance. Sure, if somebody is going to attend a GM they can arrange to vote in person. But the board will know few will be able to make the meeting.

I hope I am wrong and that a corporate action notification will appear for all holders so they an vote no. I'm sure you will be voting no, won't you!!!!

jotom, off script. We appreciate you are a SWP soldier doing your bit to argue for Putin and promote Kremlin propaganda, but stay on the crib sheet. Your handler will not be amused and you remember what happened last time.

"How do you get from that - which tries to reinstate some of the lost rights of some shareholders, and which has to be approved by all Ordinary shareholders -"

What lost rights? How will 'Ordinary shareholders' approve this at the GM given so many are posting they have no notification through their broker of a facility to vote? The 11% are currently on the same voting level as all other non certificate holders. After this proposal the 11% will have their holding commuted to certificates which provides a direct route to GM voting, which is not available to non-certificated holders.

You are fully aware of the detail and you make a rather poor attempt to deflect the exposure. Think of all those holders right now who are not receiving any indication of an opportunity to be able to vote on this proposal. Holders can see for themselves something is amiss and a chunk of investors will have future voting access in the GM sphere should this go through.

This action may fundamentally change the voting balance at future GM. Either the board opt for a corporate action to allow ALL holders to be able to vote on this proposal or it will be accused of rigging future GM ballots.

So many posting they have no notice of corporate action. A few 'claiming' they have access to a vote but no explanation how. How many 'claiming' they have a vote is with ISA accounts?

I hope I am wrong and the notices come through but this is a proposal that elevates an 11% chunk of non GM holders who previously did not have GM voting rights, like all other non-certificate holders, to now have voting rights. It looks more increasingly like a move to fix a future vote. It looks like a stitch up. It looks like something that will result in POLY being kicked off LSE, other exchanges will then refuse access and the business forced to breakup anyway.

Corrupt Russian may think this is basic business as usual, but the rest of the world, even some BRICS, have different standards. This kind of vote rigging simply makes business with Russian look as toxic as ever and proves splitting the company and dumping the toxic Russian assets is the right thing to do.

Nice try Dunno.

You conveniently miss the bit about certificate holders able ti vote in person or have a proxy at the meetings whilst the rest don't have a vote. Arranging for a select few to get a vote ahead of a major proposal about splitting assets simply stinks.

Talk about that why don't you.

When have I ever said Russia would be defeated by now? My prediction is mid October the withdrawal starts.

Enlighten yourselves for a moment. Think you are fully informed? Thin again/
https://financialpost.com/opinion/the-hand-of-government-in-the-ipcc

"they may be more virtue signalling in "forgiving" the russians led astray"

OMG, are you some hippie roaming around with your tambourine? You're on the sauce a little early if you honestly think that is going to happen.

The link to the list of companies left, winding down, leaving, trying to stay (franchise mainly) etc has been posted a number of times on here and most of the names were not high st. It is the widget suppliers that are going to be doing the most damage as the widget could be put to military use and so will be subject to so many export restrictions.

Forgive and forget? You expect that to be the policy post war? Wow, that is just incredible. I can give you a written guarantee, that ain't gonna happen.

In matters of money, trust no one, watch your back and look after number one.

CSwag, incredibly simplistic way of assuming how the business world works. There is a lot of rubbing of shoulders between business and politics and a great deal of brown nosing. If Russia is out of favour with the political west, you can bet business will align their trading with the political community. Just look at the response of a huge swath of companies in response to the invasion without any prompting alone. You think they are all going to flood back in or resume trade when the war crimes tribunal is underway, when the reconstruction sanctions on Russia are implemented, when the pariah status of Russia is used by the west politically and maintained for political expedience. We know the reputation of Russian business and its mannerisms playing fast and loose with the regulations, but that is Russia and the rest of the world have a higher set of standards. Russia was already a dodgy place to do business and most companies avoided getting involved. Those that were were often big companies tied up in the political world too. It has all changed now, the big company ties are broken or breaking and they are not going to be restored for a very long time.

"One question – how do we expect the company to make any decisions going forward even asset sales when the owners have effectively no say themselves?"

Excuse me? WHO are the owners? The board work for the shareholders who are the owners. The shareholders are being sidelined on a decision that converts non-voting shares held electronically in to voting shares held in paper certificates for a select limited few. All shareholders should be treated the same. Either all get votes through corporate action notification or all shareholders are issued paper certificates to allow AGM/SGM/EGM voting for all.

It's a stitch up and as it will materially affecting voting balance it will likely fall foul of some deep nested regulation of the LSE and the companies listing becomes vulnerable.

This resolution must be blocked or a minority of holders will suddenly control the company.

Unfortunately restoration of Russia is well beyond just the Ukraine war. Russia is going to be taken down as it is an on going threat and too much trouble. It has invented mass existential threats out of thin air and only shows signs of escalation. Even the new world order with BRICS has gone cold. This is going to hang around the neck of Russia for more than a decade.

A lot of people still hold this candle that everything can be dialled back and reset to pre war. It can't, it won't and fantasies about Europe caving in and begging Russia for mercy are just that, fantasies. Policies are being orientated to the long term with Russia erased from the international stage in trade, diplomacy, economically and culturally. POLY and all the Russian asset based companies will never return to pre war status, never.

It's a stitch up. When the split is put forward the vote will be restricted avoiding holders in nominee accounts and those who have GM voting rights (now about to be extended 11%) will no doubt swing the vote against a split and shackle the business to the toxic assets for a decade to come.

Real boardroom shenanigans to benefit a few holders and screw the rest of us.

To think, all the crap posted on here about how wonderful and brilliant the board is and how much they 'care' about the little investor. Absolute bow larks!

no corporate action with iweb, they are usually good with them.

Your nominee does not vote on your behalf. If the vote is open to retail shareholders who will not be present at the SGM you should get a corporate action notice through your broker.

From what's been posted however, it looks like this is NOT being played s a corporate action but by an in person or proxy vote at the actual meeting. So you would have to notify the company you want to make a proxy vote.

From what has been posted, this looks like a straight forward stitch up ti fiddle the vote. I warned, LSE will monitor this and kick POLY off the exchange if this is out of order.

Now I hope I'm wrong and that the correct corporate action procedure is followed for a resolution like this and all holders get to vote, but based on what is being posted and the lack of notification I am seeing, this is starting to look very dodgy.

No corporate action yet and a big fat NO. I'm not facilitating a vote rigging exercise to tr and rescue as many anti-split votes as they can muster.

Clearly a fast and loose policy with notion of a share holding democracy. They had better be very careful or he company will fall foul of LSE rules and end up being kicked off the exchange.

Anybody who trades on the advice of an anonymous poster on a public bb with an Arthur Daley type spin like Pippa deserves all they get. It might come good but it also might go very bad.

This sector is already littered with significant stock failures. So be warned. People urging you to go all in should be regarded with suspicion.

Never invest what you are not prepared to lose completely. And I man completely. If you would not be prepared to bet that money on a horse in a race, then you should not bet that money 'all in' on a single stock.

The postings like Pippa's are reckless and dangerous and should be ignored.

Mind how you go. Better to lament 'if only' rather than 'why did I do such a stupid thing'!

At least there were more trades than posts, lol