Member Info for CJohnSpain

It seems to me that had there been a significant settlement in favour of CRV, we would have had to have been told about this (irrespective of the bod's hermetic tendencies.) So isn't it likely that settlement was for a modest sum? And therefore there's no obligation to inform...... Disappointing, if this is right.

Spot on, Karina.

Hi Karina, thanks for that assurance. So the questions I'd personally ask are: 1. Have the substantive detials of the settlement been finalised? 2. When are they going to inform sharehodlers that there's been an agreement to settle? 2. What is the justification for a confidentiality agreement?

The only situation in which a confidentiality agreement would be justified, from the company's point of view, is if agreeing to this helped faciliate a more benficial agreement. By the way, a confidentiality agreement does not preclude a company from announcing there has been a settlement. ie We announce there has been a settlement; the details are confidential etc etc Once we KNOW that this is the case, then questions can be asked. Finally, until this is confirmed and we do KNOW that there has been such a confidentilaity clause, it might simply be that Sretaw have agreed to settle. But the details are still being negotiated.

I'd have thought it was best not to put one's madder theories about other people (one doesn't know) into the public domain.......

Sretaw have agreed to settle, So the case doesn't proceed. But thsi doesn't mean the details of the agreement are finalised.

It's much more likely that there's been a financial settlement; if the original deal had been forced through, then we'd have had to be infomred, given the size of a forced through takeover. The position is perhaps this: Sretaw have agreed to settle. But the details of the settlement are still being negotiated.

I've never had a problem dealing these, either through my HL account or my selftrade (equinicti) account. At HL, I have to ring up and go through a dealer. Because the shares are quoted in dollars, it's difficult to set a limit order in pounds.

yes, thank you, Karina. Casting doubt on Battle's honesty is an effective lin of attack, if CRV's case is largely based on his evidence. If there is documentray evidence of heads of agreement, it's irrelevant, but still a good time waster.

DLC holdings buys today at 30 cents Canadian. A sell at 22 cents Canadian. This is the real spread.

HI Karina, I must be looking at a different page. Maybe the MM has moved up the spread after such "heavy" buying. or maybe it's merely the imponderabiility of posible price in a very illiquid share. I've seen what you describe many times. Let's see what the next trade is at. Either way the important point that you've made is that CRV's DLC holdings alone are worth more than the current CRV market cap.

Hi Karina, it's worth just under 10m sterling. The calculation is: 57,461,906 shares x 0.3 (share price in canadian dollars) x 0.575 (today's value in pounds of a Canadian dollar.). This comes to roughly 9.9m sterling.

There have been further small buys at tthe same price in the last few days: 20 cents. It looks like the same buyer.

The property was transferred at 6.3m sterling. At 20 cents a share, CRV's holding in DLC is worth about $11.5 m Canadian. At the current exchange rate of 1$ Canadian = 0.565 sterling, that's about 6.5m sterling. I honestly woudln't get too fussed about the ludicrous sell price Tully has found. I've made a living out of investing in illiquid micro and small caps; Often, in such shares, on-line, quotes - particularly out of hours - bear only a distant relation to the actual price one can deal at. Until we have a sale, we won't really know the real spread. Until we have an actual sale in DLC, we don't know what the sell price will be. But it'll certainy be well north of the 0.00

At 20 cents, the market cap would be in the region of net book.

Hello everybody, So the information I have is that on the 25th April, there was a buy of 1500 shares in DLC at $ 0.2 Canadian. The total value of this buy was $300 Canadian. On the 26th April, there was a buy of 500 shares at $0.2 Canadian. The total value of this buy was $100 Candian. So the buy price wasn't 2 cents: it was 20 cents. If it had been 2 cents, the value of the buys would have been $30 Canadian and $10 Canadian respectively.

Hi maccking, that's a fair point. I won't deviate again. Sorry.

I have had shares in several Scottish property companies in recent years; Caledonina Trust (CNN) is my only current holding. I did a lot of grunt work a few years back, looking at( potential) property values in various locations. But sad to relate i couldn't find much information about SMJ in particular. I bought, becasue at the time there was a gaping discount to tangible asset value. The discount's less now, but still large, as you rightly point out. I'm very sorry not to have been of any help on this.

Hi Munster 1978, I used to have a large position at J Smart, but sold out some time ago at around the current share price. It's trading at a marked discount to net tangible assets, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious catalyst for the asset value to be reflected in he share Price.

Perhaps too the board have responded to shareholder discontent about being kept informed.