Member Info for Culpepper

Maybe not related party but conflict of interests - anyway, you know what I mean.

I am taking the view there will be a vote on debt for equity. This would seem a related party transaction as far as Smith Mxc and Smith IDE is concerned. I wonder the extent to which that may have implications.
Can’t discuss, because above my pay grade, and they will anyway take due notice of any legalities that may arise.

One poster? Or even two? Doesn’t matter. But the fact remains that historically many don’t bother, and a lot don’t even know unless their broker tells them.

Ggp set the reality for those involved in the voting process.
……it is received by the registrar (under CREST Participant ID 7RA36) by no later than 48 hours (excluding UK non-working days) before the time appointed for holding the meeting or, in circumstances where the General Meeting is adjourned, 48 hours before the time of the adjourned meeting (excluding any UK non-working days). Unless the Form of Proxy or the CREST Proxy Instruction is received by the date and time speci?ed above, it will be invalid.

I don’t know, but if it isn’t a case of ‘computer says’ at a time a button is pressed, I’d be surprised.

That must be right. It’s a huge corporate action, and buyers will realise failure of funding requirements would be very problematic to say the least. So it’s confidence showing at last.
I would be more than amazed if it does not pass virtually unopposed ( 1 and 2 ) that is. May be a little dissent on 3 I guess.

I feel obliged to add that is not authoritative. Best viewed as an alternative option for the transaction shown.

Stock exchange has it as an off book trade. On my reading it is therefore a sell and a buy, notified by one of the parties.
An 'off-book' trade refers to the process of trading shares away from an exchange or regulated body. They are usually executed via the over-the-counter (OTC) market. Off-book transactions are made directly between two parties, outside or 'off' of the order books.

There’s some stuff here, if anyone sufficiently interested in a general sense.
https://www.sharesoc.org/investor-academy/advanced-topics/nominee-accounts/

Doesn’t take me anywhere, but I think you mean is it Kestrel?
This is at least some of theirs, isn’t it?
“On 7 June 2021 £2,397,519 of the unsecured convertible loan notes issued in August 2018 were converted into 95,900,760 Ordinary shares of 2.5p each, at a conversion price of 2.5p per share. “

Never too soon for buyers to arrive. We’ll see, won’t we - I really had prior expectations of at least getting into the few price discovery clues we’ve had.

You really believe that NCM, out of spite or otherwise, would choose to intervene in some way at this stage. Or that Ggp and their backers would be led astray into unknown territory.
I don’t, but there you go.

I strongly doubt that anything that could even remotely happen between now and the vote would cause a cancellation of the important funding requirement vote, as led by Ggp in consultation with their strategic partners leading to bank lending.

Bit like NCM and the JV then, at a guess.

Theoretically only, it might be more pertinent to wonder what a Wyloo bid might be, if one chooses to go down the bid road in discussion.

Nobody will ever see their shares taken from their account, will they, for shorting, or loaning. And I think from what I read that trying to correlate loaned shares with those actually shorted, ie sold, is impossible, for they are also borrowed by brokers to form part of their inventory to allow them to fulfil their roles as part market makers in servicing clients. So the number on loan will never be the same as those used in shorting, up and down as they are borrowed, sold, bought back and returned.
Just what I’ve read.

You asked if some shorter owned them. Plainly not. You are the owner, for all practical purposes, of a share or shares in Ggp. You retain your voting rights. When they are returned to whence they came, probably with others, they will not be identifiable as the same share. Fungibility.

And you been posting on boards since. 2015? Crikey.

Actually, it would be no bad thing for an institution, a ‘big boy’, to buy in heavily. I hope for such an RNS, reducing the float. Similarly, the new directors showing confidence at an appropriate time.

think you’re preaching to the converted on here - those who see a future and share price rise for Ggp. But good on you in my book. Though some could have sold to advantage, me included, and bought back. It’s timing, isn’t it?
I’ve never felt anyone trying to get my shares off me. Unfortunately, there seem to be enough to go around anyway.