Member Info for Jiving

Nibj. The takeover code would forbid such a major shareholder (any over 30%) buying more without making a bid for the whole company - ie an offer to all shareholders. It is one of the v important protections we have due to our listed status.

If its a nail in any coffin Alb1, its yet another in the coffin of your credibility. How humiliating to be contradicted by someone like 99, who actually knows what they are talking about.

Yep I am increasingly in the buyout for whatever the market pays, rather than try to create a JV with big players who may prioritise you one year & leave you on hold the next four.

Really really lets back off from a civil war, it never ever works out. The danger is it becomes 99% civil war, and less than 1% civil & useful. Whereas hitherto up till this, I have found it quite the best investor forum I have been involved with in producing useful info & analysis - that has genuinely informed me & changed my perspective.

Also given whatever happens we need new investors, & new investors may well check in here, & there is nothing worse than checking in to a backstabbing forum, you roll your eyes & move on.

Remember the warrant exercise price is 0.25p, so for them to profitably make a turn they need an overall higher price than we have at present to be assured of a trading profit, really circa 0.30p+ .

Just under 5m in 2 minutes!

Given our v limited financial resources it has to make sense to focus entirely on 002. 004 can be readied for licensing next year.

Thanks thats interesting Illusion, perhaps that is how the system is supposed to work in these situations for non-UK shares? II seem to have got it sorted, but maybe other brokers haven't & they somehow 'collect' the votes rather than electronically direct investors straight through to vote online with Computershare? The issue could well be here in the UK!

Thats very useful background info Rob. I have stressed repeatedly that the issue is first & foremost with the UK brokers, it may indeed be them that are responsible (& possibly liable?) - not Computershare & certainly not the company - for votes not being recorded at the AGM. IF that is the case, we wont know until the question is posed to the brokers (possibly via their compliance dept) and the answers come in.

Rob you are correct Computershare are the independent third party responsible. I think the situation may well turn out to be situation C - but who is responsible IF there was an inability to register UK votes is a technical issue that would be best examined & determined by the platforms & regulators concerned.

Stas, re-Altag on 18 May @15.56 he posted this regarding his eligible shares:

"Document on Sedar says he owns 3,346,016 so just under 1% of the 345m shares in play at beginning of April

I had c12m at that time ….. voted for on all resolutions"

Doug, I think this is primarily an issue for 2 sets of institutions. First, the main UK platform/brokers to check that their consolidated investor votes were verifiably registered in the AGM count. It may also pay to involve their Compliance department who would be the main contact point between them & the regulators. Of course it may be the case that all the platforms can indeed verify that their votes were submitted & counted! Second, the regulators in the UK & Canada who need to examine whether all obligatory requirements to inform investors in advance of the AGM were complied with, & if there were issues with any UK platforms/brokers being unable to get their collective votes counted that this situation is rectified ASAP.

Isn't it the case we have two big investors on here who had approx 20m & 12m who voted for the resolutions? Arthur holds 3.34m shares. The Consolidation vote had 33.3m shares voted FOR, which could be accounted for by those 3 alone.

It looks like it is a similar requirement in the UK with LSE:

Disclosure of Information to Shareholders

27. What financial or other information about the company do the directors have to provide and disclose to its shareholders? What information and documents are shareholders entitled to receive?

Shareholders are entitled to receive:

Notice of shareholder meetings.

For public companies, notice requirements are as follows (unless the company's articles provide for a longer notice period):

21 days for AGMs.

14 days for other general meetings.

These periods of notice are "clear" days (that is, the day of sending the notice and the day of the meeting itself are not counted). Companies must also factor in deemed receipt when sending notices. Both emails and postal notices are deemed to be received 48 hours after sending, However, this position can be varied by the company's articles (section 1147, CA 2006).

For traded companies (that is, companies whose securities are traded on a UK regulated market, such as the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange in the UK), the following conditions must also be met before a meeting can be held on 14 days' notice:

A special resolution must be passed allowing a 14-day notice period (this is usually passed at the company's AGM).

The company must offer the possibility to vote by electronic means. This means that it must be possible to appoint a proxy through a website.

You are choosing not to understand the issue Altag, its nothing to do with 'shorters' but specifically with UK registered voters potentially having their votes actually registered at the AGM when they have voted via major UK platforms/brokers. So there is no analogy with Brexit, just as its nothing to do with 'shorters' but genuine UK registered voters.

Doug, there have been longstanding issues with UK shareholders finding out that they effectively could not vote their shares at the COPL AGM, even when the platform/broker concerned has informed them they can & collected their votes. The UK platform, might indicate you can vote, they may collect the votes from all their clients; but there is it appears then an ‘issue’ between the UK & Canada that means the votes from that particular platform/broker are not submitted to the AGM. (This may be an issue around the Depositary as described around P214 in the 2014 Prospectus).

If it turns out your HL votes have not been counted, it is quite possible that ALL HL votes have not been included in the vote. Is might also be the case that other key platform/brokers have faced a similar issue/obstacle. For example is this also the case with Interactive Investors, IG, AJ Bell, Halifax, Barclays etc.. My hunch is Spreadex will have had their votes counted & included.

It would be an interesting exercise for investors who voted via the major UK platforms/brokers to specifically check that the votes they submitted to their platform/broker were actually in turn verifiably submitted & registered at the AGM? Specifically in light of Doug’s experience below.

Similarly it seems odd that the UK exchange & regulatory authorities allow a company - with reputedly 90%+ of its shareholders in the UK via the LSE - to not notify shareholders in advance that an AGM is due via the RNS system. Surely it should be an obligation, not a voluntary matter they can choose not to undertake?

With regard to Kropz, you might look in the original listing document to see what protection minority shareholders were given from de-listing or alternatively ask IR.

It is an important issue ATG, as all shareholders in a listed company are protected by the provisions of the Takeover Code from a major holder (like Glencore) cutting a deal that disadvantages the rest of us (see my recent posts on main provisions & implications). If the company were de-listed we smaller shareholders would suffer in a number of ways but also lose the Takeover Code protection. To protect us from Glencore using its 48% stake to potentially de-list the company, Elphick/AT included the following block on Glencore's actions in this respect, I quote from the RNS of 23.11.22:

"Glencore Projects has also agreed to certain restrictions regulating the manner in which Glencore Projects exercises its voting rights in the Company including restricting Glencore Projects from using its shareholding to requisition a general meeting of the Company for the purposes of proposing any resolution to de-list the Shares from trading on AIM."

"Bligh Wilkerson Is buying, but who is he ?."

Perhaps the latest mug to be suckered into supporting Arthur & Co's gross lifestyle & incompetence. Because he was presented with a life changing opportunity [insert here: OPL 226, blah blah] - which it will be, but in a dramatically negative, wealth destroying way.

Steve, its a good point. No sane company wants anything to do with Arthur Millholland (a 5 minute google tells you why), so if the assets are real as opposed to over-hyped, buy the company, sack the grossly overpaid no-hopers, & develop a giant oil field on the cheap.

OR maybe its just the latest over-hyped Arthur-asset - like the now forgotten OPL226 - that drew in generations of mug/sucker punters (including me BTW) just to keep this grossly overpaid incompetent clown in a business where any real oil company or BOD would have sacked him 10+ years ago.

Stas, missed that about Arthur's property sale. Was that London or Hawaii?