Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Why do you say boo have the numbers of their side 404, if the founders abstain then going by the support boo had at agm they would have around 42.4% support (29/68.4).
Obv would require over 50% of private investors to vote (assuming private investors make up 14%) but that's not impossible for a key vote.
If agreement is indeed reached then "in the coming days" could even be tomo considering rev B have been quite conservative in their short term targets (while obv wildly missing the longer term "end of month" ones).
On May 25th they said - "The Company continues to expect to publish its FY22 accounts during May 2023." then published the results the next day on May 26th.
On May 26th they said the interims would be "within the next two weeks" then published them a week later on 2nd June.
A compromise makes sense considering the vote was/is around 50/50 as to who'd win if the founders don't vote.
If founders abstain boo have around 42.4% based on their support at AGM. Private investors hold around 14% so would/will need half of private investors to vote. Obv that is do-able but the vote wasn't/isn't a guarantee for either party from what I can see but maybe slightly favours/favoured Bob et al.
Sp is down over 6% on being reminded of the prospect of boo taking control...(that's prob on top of already being surpressed by 50% odd by boos actions in general).
Boo apparently believe they have enough support (if Pis don't vote) even if no share price support.
Well the sky news article said they were considering requsitioning the second general meeting within the next couple of days so didn't sound like were waiting for the 1st general meeting to happen.
If they wait till early Aug to request second meeting then we'd potentially be looking at late Sept before it happens, not sure why they would delay surely they could just cancel the second meeting if they lose the 1st meeting vote in early Aug.
You would think boo would have requisitioned a second general meeting already, why are they delaying? They could have done it straight away post-AGM.
The vote for the first meeting in early Aug even if they win wouldn't give them board control (2 boo verses 3 current Rev B).
When/if they did ask for the second vote it could take up to 21 days to organize it and 28 days after that to have it. So could be looking at late Aug even if it was asked for today. So each day boo delay they are delaying when they could have board control.
Makes me wonder about the paragraph in the article suggesting "Peace was not impossible" between the two companies before first EGM.
Don't think it's that simple AJC, else it would happen all the time?
As I've said before such a doom-ish scenario could happen to any company theoretically, including boohoo themselves. A concert of boo holders making up over 50% of shareholders could seize control of the board, breach the RCF covenants and force boo into a distressed state then negotiate a pre-admin deal where they sell boos assets to a new company the over 50% boo holders have made.
Surely this would happen all the time as it would be a great way for over 50% holders to gain cheap assets?
I also don't think the three directors boo have suggested would be thrilled about how their cv will look if they are known for being in charge of a company that goes into admin.
Doesn't add up though, they can't steal it without paying a fortune to the founders for the loss of where their holdings could have climbed back to.
If the founders didn't trust boo they either wouldn't vote with them or if they can't vote would sell some of their shares to a party who can ensuring Bob won the vote.
Therefore I can't see how boo get is cheap in a way they have previously with other companies.
As mentioned before if founder abstain they appear to have around 42.4% of the vote. Private investors prob hold around 14%. Potentially just need prob half of private investors to vote (obv in favour of Bob) to block boo.
Obv boo may have won over other parties to their cause however if there intention was to trash Rev B as some claim then they boo in addition to the founders would have to be rewarding these players £ wise to compensate them.
Slightly mixed article...sounds hostile still but also says this - "One person close to the situation said an attempt to broker peace between the two companies was not impossible ahead of the first EGM, which is expected to take place in about a month's time."
Depends on turnout Oke...if founders abstain then going by the highest vote boo won at agm which was around 29% then boo likely would have around 42.4% of the rest of the eligible vote (29/68.4).
Obv PIs are less good at voting in general however I think this vote in particular would attract high turnout, directors also bought some shares likely mostly from PIs which reduces dependence on PIs a little.
Deathshares it's hard to say, if founders abstain then going with the highest vote in any of the resolutions boo had at agm which was 29% for dilution question then boo would have 42.4% of the vote (29/68.4).
Therefore not a majority however would need a strong turnout from private investors. It helps that the directors recently bought a few shares likely from PIs, as each buy from PI's makes the vote slightly less dependent on them.
Also you would think PIs would be a lot more informed in this share and about the vote than in a "normal" meeting.
Hereshopin it's true it's not unreasonable of a shareholder of their size to have a seat however obv it wouldn't reasonable for them to have all the choices of seats either with 26% odd, which seemed what they were/are attempting.
Also when Rev B spelt out a rather doomish type scenario of boo taking over (rightly or wrongly) boo didn't seem to put out much of a rebuttal to this idea.
Interesting, so even if boo win this specific vote they would still be 'outnumbered' on the board for a period as they'd still be Schwartz and the two new NEDs still there but only 2 boo execs (but the boo execs would be in ceo and cfo position).