Member Info for johnychainlocker

Thanks for info @Falcon

Good onya Future - no selling for me, just holding tight to see how pans out

So too AJ Bell. Happy to take 'em off you for 23.4p but no buy price online! Got ya over a barrel really!

Johnychainlocker says JO answered exactly to script - hedging bets - 90% /10%, whatever, can always claim JO was right all along! LOL!

JO hedging his bets so that, as usual, he can say he ‘forecast’ that!

@Ice- been reading right back through the message board. You’ve come under lot of flack, but as far as this bewildered investor goes, your narrative is becoming more and more believable as time goes on.

(BTW -where is the message from Jimmy Oxford’s last post- arrogant tw.. that he was!)

Nice one Bob, thanks

Thanks Axel.

Geewhiz this must be busiest board on LSE chat.

Just received form to vote for disapplication procedure.

TBH 30p would not be a bad outcome for me personally and with all the flak flying around with disparate theories everywhere I am more than a little discombobulated (a froggles term I’m sure) as to which way to go once accounts published.

@Axel “I will wait for the accounts before voting”. Not having a go here ‘cos I’ve read others saying the same or similar and wondering if I’ve missed something. Not really been following much since suspension BUT how else you going to vote until after accounts are published?

Ignore, logged out and then in again and back to normal - phew!

Don't know what's going on but logging into AJ Bell this am and price is now showing 0.00GBP, whe reas up until today it has been at suspension price!

Apologies @Clear , you're correct.

JP Morgan Chase, JP Morgan Securities Ltd, JP Morgan Cazenove - all gets complicated.

JP Morgan Chase are the legal entity in the TR-1 Filings.

Suppose it's the 'The branded advisory' arm vs the wider 'JPMorgan group caused my confusion.

Stilll, the Scheme 3 docs and appointment of Rule 3 advisors would probably put paid to any conflict of interest arguments.

To put into context @clear "What they mean by one particular area is that being an 'engineering company' they don't fall under Banking and Financial Services authorised list of companies"

It was the response to a question I put that I was flummoxed by. Their answer - and this from a Supervisor btw,

"I've completed a search on our Financial Services Register, this is a public register of the FIRMS authorised by us and warning pages for unauthorised firms. Based on the information you've provided, I've been UNABLE TO LOCATEan exact entry for a firm called Wood group, which means they're not authorised by ourselves", which of course was boll.cks!

Can't find any evidence of JP Morgan being a major shareholder in Wood Group @Clear.

As far as I can make out JPM are acting only as joint financial adviser and broker to Wood, and no indication that they hold shares.

JPMorgan entities have disclosed a >5% economic exposure to Wood via derivatives during the offer period—so there’s at least a potential perceived conflict, but that’s typically managed by information-barriers and by appointing independent Rule 3 advisers. (That’s the mechanism the Code uses to mitigate potential conflicts for boards).

FWIW!!!!!

Just received reply from my FCA via my MP

START:

"We note the concerns raised by Mr M....... in his email to the FCA of 26 August

2025 regarding the possible Acquisition, in particular his concerns regarding the

level of transparency and nature of the communication by Wood with minority

shareholders.

We note that Mr M........ has also requested an explanation from the FCA as to

how the ‘proceedings currently taking place with Wood Group’ (which we take to

mean the possible Acquisition) align with our published aims of protecting

minority shareholders.

As acknowledged above, Wood is a Listed Company and therefore subject to the

FCA’s oversight of disclosure, governance, and market conduct. This includes

compliance with the UK Listing Rules, Disclosure Guidance and Transparency

Rules, and the UK Market Abuse Regulation (the “UK MAR”) regime, which

governs insider dealing, unlawful disclosure, market manipulation and other

forms of market abuse. Where necessary and appropriate, we work closely with

other regulators, such as The Takeover Panel, which also has oversight of the

possible Acquisition under the Takeover Code.

We can confirm that Mr M........’s email of 26 August 2025 has been passed on

to the relevant team in our Market Oversight division for consideration. Please

be assured that we take such matters very seriously and continue to monitor

the market closely in line with our statutory objectives to protect consumers,

including shareholders, maintain market integrity, and promote effective

competition." END.

One part of the reply really made me laugh, and shows why folks have total lack of confidence in FCA :

"While our Supervision Hub colleague was CORRECT to say to Mr M....... that Wood

is NOT an authorised firm (and therefore does NOT appear on the Financial

Services Register of the FCA), Wood IS (as Mr M.......

pointed out) A LISTED company and IS, therefore, subject to the FCA’s oversight of

its disclosure, governance, and market conduct"

WTF does that all add up to !!!!!!!!!?

Unbelievable

Only re-inforces what I have long suspected also froggles

Sorry hit the key early - not finished - ..............follow..........

I received a reply from the FCA, stating "I've completed a search on our Financial Services Register, this is a public register of the firms authorised by us and warning pages for unauthorised firms. Based on the information you've provided, I've been unable to locate an exact entry for a firm called Wood Group"!!!!

If you look at the image you will understand all!

I followed this up with a reply to the FCA:

"I am more than a little surprised by your reply.

To be lenient to your good self, perhaps it could be the name, but I note, and bring pointedly to your attention the red highlights in the attached jpg, snipped DIRECTLY FROM THE FCA WEBSITE!

It is small wonder the general public have little or no faith in the effectiveness of the FCA.

Regards

Note: for HM Treasury and Sir Julian Smith MP: - is this truly the level of competence the public has to expect from a body accountable to both HM Treasury and Parliament?

On Friday 29th August I received a reply from my MP, as I requested he look into this on an urgent basis, and he has written to FCA, and others expressing his own concerns - so he says!

All FWIW!!

Https://i.postimg.cc/cJMtx95H/Wood-Group-FCA.jpg

Don't expect ANYTHING from the FCA - why ? -

just copy/paste the link into your URL

I wrote to the FCA, cc: HM Treasury , Dept. of Business and Trade, my MP a week ago now, with snippets from the many concerns raised by posters on this board.

I also included the following:

"Please can you explain how the proceedings currently taking place with Wood Group align with the published aims of the FCA of protecting minority shareholders, namely -

"The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) strengthened its listing rules to protect minority shareholders".

"Active engagement by all shareholders is essential to make markets work well. By safeguarding minority interests from abuse by controlling shareholders, these changes will promote market integrity and empower minority shareholders to hold the companies they invest in to account.”

I would also draw attention to the 'Leeds Reforms' championed by the Business Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, encouraging the 'unlocking of retail investment' and the campaign of explaining to the public 'the benefits of investing'.

Me too, they’ve got my vote!

JO, you forgot to add “ and Bob, please forward details to all your friends on LSE chat, any company that expresses an interest in me so that they can all cash their holdings in before I take office”