Member Info for jointhedots

Brokers generally collect all the For/Against voters, often via an electronic submission form and then submit as a job lot - check with your broker how to vote and "MOST INPORTANTLY" the cut off date for submissions.

It will be earlier than the official voting deadline.

Still time for an alternative offer to materialise, at this stage a bidder doesn't need to attract 75% of the votes, just 25% to start a battle for control. Don't assume nothing is going on behind the scenes, we really don't know and out BoD have never been arsed to tell us anything unless they had to. II's could have been approached already, it will be interesting to see in the selling II's ease off - they will if they think a better deal is likely
In order the do

another RNS from M&P via Barclays.

I have and alternative explanation for M&P buying shares and also taking a short position - I went to the take over panel website the other day and as well as a boat load of requirements and explanations they state that areason for declarations is to prevent anyone including the bidder creating a false market in the shares.

As M&P have not come out with an alternative to the BoD's recommendation they could be on a sticky wicket if buying shares and then making an offer. By balancing the scales with positive and negative trades they negate that. Just a thought.

The short positions, can easily be closed for a small consideration if necessary, but the shares owned are worth 3 times their face value in voting. If they do go for it this could very quickly unravel for the BoD

They've gone over 1% and are buying at up to 18.58p which means that's their starting point if they where to make an offer and if my understanding is correct they would need to offer cash of at least that amount - interestingly if they offer cash and shares does it still require a cash element of the same value i.e. 18.58p cash + shares, or is it permissible to substitute shares for cash.

Interesting development though, they are not idiots and so we must assume they have gone over 1% to send a message rather than in error - what's the message??? There is every possibility that if, I know it's a big if, they are planning to throw the dice to beat Geo Park, that they have already got indicative support from some IIs. We should not assume all II's are with the BoD, only 2 have come out for them.

GreggsStottie - no it doesn't infer less likelihood of a counter bid.

Entities planning a counter-bid may well have been waiting for the BoD to put their cards on the table i.e. present a rationale for the offer acceptance.

Unfortunately and presumably on the basis that knowledge is power or more likely complete disrespect to shareholders they have provided NIL justification except that it is a higher offer than the SP previously. If you think about it that is poor justification indeed.

Anyway, back to your question, who knows! But it is not all done and dusted yet and now onwards for the next couple of weeks is when moves will be made or not as the case may be

No information about WHY they believe the offer is appropriate or the strategic review, remit or recommendations - truly disgusting IMO that they really have not justified the action.

Great News - a Christmas present for Geo Park.

Will surely help in negotiations with Oxy on the carve up of the assets after we are dispossessed.

As I've said previously, I do not believe JW and perhaps even the 2 parasite directors want to sell - that's why I think if we voted against the deal JW would stay on.

pickedpeck "Unless a counter bid emerges in the next few days the only reason to stay will be the 3% premium for the final sale price versus the current open market. "

Why make statements like that? So clearly untrue! I spent many months trying to dispel misleading posts from posters who make statements of fact that are nothing of the sort, let's not go down that road again. It's an opinion not a fact

When Occidental bought Anadarko, they came in late with a bid - II's will change their mind if a good offer comes in and maybe someone is waiting to see the full supporting text of the Geo offer to cut off the BoD's riddle to provide justification to reject an alternative.

Notwithstanding you don't know who is buying shares, the deal is not approved until after the shareholder vote and neither Geo or any of their agents are allowed to destabilise the SP during this process - to accumulate and not notify could prejudice the whole process.

Agree, this is worrisome but the downside is limited. though approximately 3.5% gain is downside and significant upside remains a possibility.

ML - I guess none of us are sure of the way forward but we must be bold or simply grin and bear it.

One area that has not been considered and will cost nothing is to approach the Takeover panel with a formal complaint.

Everything I say in this post is hypothetical and there is no suggestion of impropriety on anyone's part, I'm not an expert on AIM. Company and Takeover rules (they are all different) so I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just interested in some answers to a puzzling Formal Sales Process and BoD actions.

But I am aware that parties acting in concert need to declare, begs the question, if one was to surmise that GC was indeed approached or threatened with withdrawal of support (i.e. as per allegations in the press, times article) and subsequently agreed to pursue a sale to the preferences of certain shareholders; then are they not then working in concert? I am aware that BoD members have very clear duties to shareholders above and beyond AIM

First question is I suppose - is it normal for certain shareholders to be consulted on a bid in a formal sales process when other shareholder are being provided information that many believed suggested a far higher offer price is possible.

As I say I'm not sure on the rules and not accusing anyone of anything except getting us a poor deal which is of course subjective, but especially under a potential takeover situation things have to be done right and I feel we need/deserve a credible explanation especially as to why potential buyers were rebuffed , it seems strange to me and many others have raised concerns that we were led to believe the offer price would be much higher. That is an important factor as no action was taken by the many perhaps mis-informed shareholders to suggest an alternative course of action or curtain the process based on a false premise, remembering we supposedly have a great business someone could possibly have been done.

I also believe the NOMAD and NED's have responsibilities in this area.

On the morning of the RNS many shareholders where stunned If II's where consulted during this process, then one might argue it may bring into doubt the validity of the process, as one might allege other equally important, shareholders e.g. Me, You and other II's may have been disadvantaged or even deceived to satisfy a small subset.

If anyone has experience of the rules or has a mate working for a NOMAD - your opinion would be welcomed even if it's to tell me the comments are rubbish.

Superdad - I appreciate your viewpoint, it has great merit and is a concern to us all, I said at the start we need plausible options along with a no vote.

To that end Moneylender is doing a useful job collecting details as much because it gives a feel to the level of dissent, allows information distribution and maybe even gives some party with the competence to challenge the deal the encouragement to come forward - doing nothing is not an option for many of us. Bear in mind, no one is giving irrevocable undertaking, simple registering an intention to take a particular course of action.

Having said that my vote is an irrevocable NO, I've voted to remove them before, I regard them as near useless in any case. lol

I urge you and I'm sure many others inclined to support to keep a watching brief and decide based on how events unfold - the BoD should not be given any comfort at this stage.

It doesn't help any company in any sector when Jeremy Corbyn and his commie mates announce a batch of Nit-Wit taxes.

Windfall tax on oil companies 12bn and higher corporation tax - a sure fire way to simply chase all the companies overseas and kill investment in the North Sea.
Anyway, hopefully his folly will have no impact on Amerisur, but the UK oil industry, N Sea, is under threat.

I'm convinced he wants to destroy the economy, the labour party has been highjacked. It's very sad for the nation as the option is a bunch of bare-faced liars.

Boosh - don't underestimate the importance of shareholders like yourself, for every share you vote Geo will have to find 3 times as many from a dwindling pool.

The reason it is important that those planning to vote No contact Moneylender is that if we determine it's appropriate to take additional votes at the upcoming meeting e.g. Expand consideration of offer to include shares, mergers or asset sales. there needs to be a minimum % of shareholders to demand this.

100m shares totally negates 400m shares and the YES vote disclosed thus far is totally offset Already. So all square so far and we are playing for around 800m shares and we only need 200m of these.

I suspect small shareholders represent at least another 100m, maybe they don't even read BB's, but there is no reason to assume they will be any less annoyed than us as could be the case with some II's.

The game is on and IMO we could eventually get a better outcome if we remain resolute, the key now is the arrival of an alternative option - if another competitive offer comes forward then the chances of the Geo deal going through will shrink dramatically

75% of votes

IMO 300m votes against will secure a defeat - a proportion of Votes are always not cast is any situation - the more an activist group can make waves the more likely institutions are to consider their position.

The chance of the SP dropping drastically in the event of a no-deal can be mitigated is there is a vote to return a proportion of the cash to shareholders in the form of a significant buy-back or tender programme and non-core asset sales to delivery value to shareholders. That would allow Michinoko and others an out.
Michinoko, the BoD and other supportive institutions that have committed irrevocable to sell to Geo, cannot sell until 2022 (I think it may apply to all of them), so whilst this is going on they will be stuck unless Geo throw in the towel.

We need Moneylender to have proposals from the Group alongside a rejection and even more useful would be support from some institution that can propose others to run the company as the BoD may well threaten resignation to scare opponents.

Having said that, personally, I think a No vote or even a high risk of one will simply result in an increased or maybe shares and cash offer. I would be very happy with say half payment in Geo shares as they are the real deal when it comes to running a successful oil company.

I'm sure you guys are right, I was just guessing and look for anything that might signal a II resistance. I suppose the nearest we have to it is Hermes continuing to accumulate, though they are probably on the same strategy as ODDO.

Just considering where the first kick out at GC might come from, if any, thinking back both the Rex Harbour issues and potential Michinoko revolt were actually initially highlighted in the FT - maybe they'll do a piece.

ODDO's purchasing could very well be significant, just announced another 2.3 million.

If they are acting on behalf of a client, that clien may also be approaching II's top commit blocks of shares. Early day and they may simply be taking as punt but still it's support.

I hope they feel aggrieved.

I think that justy because the SP has softened in the lasty couple of sessions does not mean there is no buying action - IMO those interested in gaining a blocking share or challenging Geo will most likely approach II's directly. Buying in the market is too slow and uncertain for the quantities required, whereas approaching II's could leave a party with sufficient committed shares to make a move without any prior notification.

Marg - that's actually a very sensible approach as the downside risk is minimal and the upside of around 3% already on the table. That's equates to an annualised rate of 36% or up to 45% compound based on a completion within 1 month.

Even if my numbers are slightly out, there's no doubt it beats more or less anything available else where except perhaps loan shark lending (Wonga type)

Mav- I responded to you last night as you seem to be suggesting the deal is fair and IMO subtly trying to take the steam out of PI anger with being "STITCHED UP"

I'm a little concerned wrt your motives here, presumably you are in profit or perhaps not invested (company stooge), but for many of us who are bitterly disappointed and are sitting on losses, this offer is derisory.

I say company stooge reluctantly, as I know it will annoy you, but your suggestion that Seeking Alpha are making numbers up to upset us, is far, far beyond ridiculous. They produce article and to do guest contributor to advise investor as other online sites do, they don't try to upset anyone. If recollection serves me right they have also produced other articles on North American outfits including Geo Park and I have posted them.

Mav - yes really.

Even if some other party comes in and pushes the price up. they IMO have betrayed investor who trusted them.

You think what you like, I no longer care to try to appease those that will never see what is obvious. We've had months of various poster refusing to consider any fault on the part of the BoD, most PI's now appear to have woken up to the true situation.