If you would like to ask our webinar guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund a question please submit them here.
Fairdealer20
I assume you have informed PB of your holding that could possibly be used by way of share certificates. The 5% used to request the EGM were unfortunately all held by nominees so it is going to be difficult to reach the required threshold.
If there are any more EOG shareholders who hold certificates or could arrange to have them, it would be a good idea to let PB know of your holdings. Unfortunately none of my 1% are available.
We cannot let WH get away with treating shareholders so shabbily.
@ fairdealer20,
It is my understanding that Inland Revenue rules are that shares held in ISAs and SIPPs have to be held via a Nominee so unfortunately you will not be able to have shares certificates held in that way.
Itsawrap.
It looks like the Reabold shareholder’s shares were all held with the same nominee i.e. Pershing, which was then used to request their AGM being ‘the holder as nominee’ of the underlining beneficial owners (listed) the ‘Requisitioning shareholders, holding at least 5 per cent of the paid-up share capital of the company.
The six EOG shareholder’s shares used to request the EGM are held in 4 different nominee accounts so presumably none would have sufficient number of shares to become the 5%.
Even though we can vote at an AGM/EGM via our nominees (as we have to hold shares in an ISA and SIPP in nominee accounts), the same is not the case when requesting an EGM and that is the anomaly that WH used to refuse the request.
Serif.
I'm not sure of the specific reason for the request being refused but apparently the application was illegal because of some inexact rules on Aim but WH was hiding behind the rules as they are. There is a petition being organised by ShareSoc, mentioned in a post on the 28th November, to get some clarification on the Aim market. Perhaps someone can clear this up for us.
Term and Tony,
PB was aware of a potential issue with nominees and went to great lengths to arrange the required 5% (which is all that was required). There was substantially more than 5% of shares available to him but he concentrated on the required number with letters of conformation from the Nominees which was a challenge in itself.
Tony, you say it is reasonable to assume that PB would have submitted a further request for an EGM if there was another way around it but as I have mentioned earlier the timing is not in the best interests of success if another avenue was actually an option.
I suggest we all wait and see what happens as ‘Letting the cat out of the bag’ or ‘Showing your hand’ is not a good idea.
Watch this space.
I'll repeat my 7th December post.
"Upon the submission of a valid request, the board of directors of the company must call for an extraordinary general meeting within three weeks. In case the board fails to do so, the members can themselves call the EGM within three months of depositing the request."
So I don't think now is a sensible time to call an EGM as WH would probably call it Christmas week hoping no-one turns up and whilst being diverted preparing for Christmas, would not be voting in large numbers.
Perhaps a new application will be made in the New Year. Fingers crossed.
Watch this space.
Serif
"Upon the submission of a valid request, the board of directors of the company must call for an extraordinary general meeting within three weeks. In case the board fails to do so, the members can themselves call the EGM within three months of depositing the request."
So I don't think now is a sensible time to call an EGM as WH would probably call it Christmas week hoping no-one turns up and whilst being diverted preparing for Christmas, would not be voting in large numbers.
Perhaps a new application will be made in the New Year. Fingers crossed.
“However, in summary, the board does not believe that the proposed resolutions would be in the best interests of the company and none of the directors would vote in favour of such resolutions were they to be proposed.”
As whats left of them don't hold many shares compared with a number of us PIs thats not going to help them much.
Copper3
A company’s shareholders can make a request to the directors that a general meeting be held. Directors must call a general meeting if they receive such a request from shareholders who hold at least 5% of the company’s paid-up share capital that carries voting rights.
@izstar
Is 2.2p a calculated figure or wishful thinking? It would have to be nearer 4p for me to be happy to accept a takeover bid considering the potential of EOG's assets.
What do others think is a realistic price level?
I didn’t say that Vmax, all I did was mention that the Divis had been RNSed on a Wednesday earlier this year and Gensis3 wondered why there was so little much fascination with the Dividend so I just answered that. I never mentioned the sp / dividend relationship.