Member Info for johnpwh

British etc
You cant just dismiss an opinion, especially one which was reasoned and lengthy enough to have required thought and an investment of time, just because it doesn't back your opinion. Listening may save you money.
For several years there were a group of 20 or more highly intelligent people constantly debating HUR. The consensus opinion of the HUR SP on first oil amongst those well researched articulate posters was significantly over £1. That is what, 2 years only ago? Dismiss contrarian views at your peril where they aren't blatant ramping/ deramping

Hi Chris
Good post, contrarian views supported by logic - nothing wrong with that in my book. I don't agree with the notion of GF as a company that will go into a sulk if the bid is defeated and go on some sort of go slow. They are already heavily invested and are desperate for the product, they aren't just here for the investment. With production on the horizon I cant see them being petulant.
Regarding Hurricane, i introduced that as a (rare) example of shareholders successfully challenging the BoD of a quoted company. It went as far as a Court case. I wasn't comparing companies, and added a bare bones background for context. Whether that was a wise move for Hurricane shareholders is another matter, time will tell - I believe the management when they say that one reasonably likely outcome is that the equityholders end up totally wiped out. However that discussion isn't for this board.

Don't think he has participated in an interview since. Before that he had been a regular, couldn't get him off the video.
It was a bit like the situation at Hurricane Energy (except that company is rapidly turning its toes up, not looking at a bright future like BCN) where the founder and driving force, a misguided blinkered geologist called Trice, was omnipresent on interviews until it all started to go very horribly pear shaped, very quickly. Then it went quiet. Very.
Funnily enough Hurricane, which I have no interest in now, have basically had a shareholder revolt led by an activist institution. Today they have won a court case overturning a restructuring plan and are now out to kick out half of the Directors (who were parachuted in after Trice slunk off).

Yes. It was the first time he had stopped coughing, we noted at the time. That may sound an odd observation to newbies here but it was true. it was like a nervous affliction.

I care about both Mr C. Funny how he has suddenly stopped being interviewed

Crazy. A company under a proposed & almost certain bid, with the rights to 50 % of one of the largest, if not the largest , low cost battery grade Lithium deposits. In final stages of mine development and fully funded to production. All at a time when governments are bringing forward the death of ICE cars far more rapidly than was expected only a year ago and Lithium prices consequently rising - this SP should be a multiple of its start of year value . What on earth are this board of directors doing?

Well M&G have over 19% of 'Scheme' shares (13 point something % of total shares in issue). Provided we do only need 25% then even if turnout is 100% (which it wont be) then PIs should be able to block.

Down to M&G really mate, would they blindly follow a board recommendation?

......Credit Agricoles game? Are they just after a quick turn (so likely to vote for) or are they after a bigger prize?

Foz, if the board fail to recommend I will see it as a sign and find religion. Don't think it would be a conventional route for me though, despite being an old fogey I'd go happy clappy, sitting around with an acoustic guitar partaking of the odd spliff.
Sadly I think that is unlikely to happen.

Cr*p isnt it Foz? Its hard to know what to do. My average is just over 40p so I probably shouldn't moan.
But this could have been life changing for some so while it is profit it does feel that we are losing a huge opportunity due to this BCN Board. I try not to be as abusive as some feel able to, but I am increasingly angry about this

Yep tomcat, quick calc is that at 67.5p the bid is £184m. So a couple of pence more at most!

99.9%. Who would have thought.....it implies the bid chronically undervalues BCN!

Think we can assume the bid is coming but it sounds as if the preconditions (other than endorsement by the GF Shareholders) are not yet met. Maybe that is me reading incorrectly between the lines, but are we are in for another delay?
I still think that GF have probably only got the go ahead at 67.5p, so sooner or later that is going to be the bid. Part of me want to invest more but then I think we are at 57/58 ish and the SP will only rise to the early 60s on such a bid due to the likely delays. If, as expected, our weak BoD recommend the bid when it is made it is fairly likely to succeed I suspect.

Half expected there to be some price movement first thing to reflect the outcome of the GF S/H meeting.. I assume that is taking place in Asia so will have happened already. Although we may not know what went on you can bet your life the market professionals do

Thanks tomcat. Will look at this evening (that's how dull my social life is!)

Foz, tomcat
Yes, I am trawling the internet and the moment.
'A scheme of arrangement is a statutory mechanism which is an alternative to a contractual offer. It is a formal arrangement between the target company and its shareholders, which is governed by the Companies Act 2006'. Makes me wonder if this can only be used if the offer is a Recommended offer?
and, more importantly
'At least 50% in number constituting 75% in value of each relevant class of creditors must vote in favour of the scheme of arrangement for it to proceed to sanction.' For creditors in this application I substitute scheme shareholders.

I feel much happier this morning! Also jams %s from his late night post will be greater for institutions (who support us) since without GFs shares the denominator in the % calculation will be (384m - 110.9m), so correspondingly greater.
Have a good day

tomcat
Can you send a link to the document you are quoting from?
John

Foz
More than happy to accept that, can you send me a link to the published code where I can read the code (rather than trying to interpret the RNS which is what I (and others I suspect) are trying to?
John

tomcat
I may be wrong, we need a lawyer to interpret that sentence but that is my feeling - that if sufficient votes (in respect of 75% of eligible shares) are cast we need 50.1% to be no. So the actual number of no votes will depend upon how many votes are cast in total.
jam
I am positive in my mind that GF doesn't get to vote. The RNS mentions Scheme Shares, the glossary definition of Scheme shares mentions Excluded shares, then Excluded shares also appears in the glossary. It is quite clear that GFs own shares are not counted. Use CTRL+F on the word Excluded and you will see what I mean.
I don't agree about the 75%, I think that figure defines (if you like) minimum turnout required. Then once that is achieved a 'majority' is required - which is anything over 50% per the dictionary definition of majority. I don't want to argue about it, I'm not saying I'm right. But that is my interpretation having studied that wording several times and though unpalatable (because it will be very hard to fend off) I cant change what I read.
I know my interpretation of that sentence is unpopular with my fellow posters. Its unpopular with me. But I honestly think its what it says.