Member Info for FreeTheCaterham7

With over 25% they can be sure of blocking special resolutions, which require 75% approval, although in practice you don’t need the full 25% because it’s very unlikely that every single shareholder (apart from the would be blocker) will vote in favour of any special resolution.
Special resolutions are required to -
1.. To change the company name
2. To amend the company’s articles of association
3. A reduction in the company’s share capital
4. Disapplication of shareholder pre-emption rights
5. Certain cases where the company purchases its own shares
6. Changing the company’s status by registration, for example:
From an unlimited company to a limited company (or vice versa)
A private company to a public company (or vice versa)
7. Winding up of the company voluntarily (or by the court)

I’d guess that 4 is most relevant - it means they can’t be involuntarily diluted

Change of tack

J—CIT said - "I believe they have to bid at the highest price paid per share in the last twelve months."
That would only apply if they were forced to bid by virtue of having gone over 30%, which they have yet to do. Also, to be clear, under those circs the minimum bid is the highest price that THEY have paid over the last 12 months, not the highest mark of the last 12 months

And when I say process, I mean series of **** ups

Hmm yes Lucando said he’d seen 210m offered at 7.30
I’m not sure what the process would be for that to get put on the book, even if it was pulled soon after

@Andybe4 said earlier - "The lack of haste (given we are in a global pandemic where drugs are needed rapidly) was astonishing."
The longer he spins it out, the longer his salary can chew through the company cash pile.

Yes, that's a positive signal

Did he say, "we have some deep dive data"?

There’s nothing.
We all lost our money through our own misjudgement.

@Manifesto said - "If you watch the Interview
a few times you can tell they have some Deep Dive Data"

Surely, surely, after we all got carried out, many of us sucked in by witless nonsense such as "look at RM’s body language, the results must be great", we are past the stage where we say things like this?

@merchantman said - "It’s the magic 26%.. read up on your company law."
What is the significance of 26% please?

What ground breaking RNS?

"is it even possible that this drug and it's patented value are now almost worthless ?"
Are you suggesting it’s not possible? Of course it’s possible. It’s the most likely outcome. There is still, however, a chance that it will some day make some money.

Upupndawaybby - a decision about whether to hang on to this thing would be better based on where it’s going in the future, not on whether or not one is in the red.

Christ don't let Multy see your forecasts

Yeah but RM’s big smile and positive body language means the trial’s going really well….
Oh.

Lads/lasses
After the dismal experience of losing 80% of my (admittedly modest) investment in this share I am a bit more than wary of this tendency to jump on any "positive" rumour/speculation/invention. It's the kind of thinking that got us in a mess in the first place, and I am pretty impatient with it. We need to be more realistic.
TLW posts some reasonably sensible stuff on here but the 25% + 5% comment was, on the face of it, nonsense. Perhaps TLW could take us throught the lateral thinking process that got him there.

Isn’t Morningstar really out of date? I think they scrape things like company/investment fund reports which have deeply incomplete data 6 months after the event……

"Up she goes"
No she doesn’t
I’ve just bought a scrap below the middle. They are well offered at the moment.

Oh no, don’t bother, I’ve found it

Has anyone got a citation/link to support the idea that overseas investors don’t have to declare a stake until they reach 5%?