Member Info for LetsTry

Taverham - perfectly plausible.

I don't think it is safe to assume the two big blocks earlier today were bought by someone interested in acquiring the firm. Could be pure speculation. Buy at thirty-something and sell at fifty-something on the same day or shortly after? Not bad. Wish I could do that!

With DSR-1's post accounting for > 55% of the shares, these two together amounting to a further 22% are very interesting.

Possible a stalemate has developed with possible buyers interested but none seeing how they can cross the finish line. Could just turn into a long waiting game to see who walks away first and gives the prize to another, or it might give the BOD more leverage if they were to bless the purchase. I think this is going to run for a good while yet.

Was looking forward to a good bottle of red tonight. Looks like another evening on the Ovaltine. Hey ho.

DRS1 - I hope and wish I'm wrong, but I really can't see a deal going any where near 150. looking to save their own bacon, the best they can do is minimise their losses, secure overly well paid jobs to claw back some of their losses over time, or some mix of the two.

A compelling SP recovery plan to encourage existing share holders to hang on and not sell would be ideal, but not sure I'd believe it if they pulled something too outrageous out of the hat at short notice.

However, given more than one possible buyer alluded to :

- perhaps one or more others will launch their own hostile move now the starting gun has been fired

- but that's a bit unpredictable. The Board could perhaps re-open urgent negotiations other(s) and try to come up with a quick deal that's better than doing nothing. Tav's point about such deals not favouring the seller are particularly relevant here and it wouldn't be a great price. But suppose they could quickly come to a BOD recommended deal price of, say, 85p for shareholders (i.e. less than speculation on this board and elsewhere, so someone would be getting PHD Cheap) and jobs for the boys? Might just fly.

There's more to come here I think.

a little pain will focus their minds.

.....so the Directors have taken a big hit today. It will be interesting to see whether and how strongly they push back.

being very selfish 60p would give me a small positive return. Not what I was hoping for, but not a loss. I agree that others may not come out unscathed if you're right.

Thanks! Just keep watching I think....

with too large blocks of around 12 million shares each having already gone through, anyone have a sense of how high they might have to go to secure a controlling stake? I don't have access to anything other than the most basic data.

the RNS announcing the closure of the process was going to bring about an entirely predicatble and significant drop.

bunco - that was my ill informed but immediate reaction.

Killer of a strategy. Forgive me for commenting to the knowledgable - One reason hostile takeovers often yield less than one recommended by the Board is that the buyer is blind of much of the info they need t evaluate risk. Has one or more of the parties involved in 9 months of discussion simply decided they now know enough from information shared in good faith to buy without a premium? Perhaps we'll find out in the fullness of time?

DSR1 - and a further 12.2m shares traded for £4m @ 11:10 approx.........

Taverham - agreed, that's a risk.

If the community were to set the minimum sale price at a suitably high (but not silly) figure the Board would be incentivised to come back with at least that. In a sense, it represents the shareholders minimum acceptable return in a defined time frame.

Of course, there is no requirement for shareholders to accept it if they feel the Board are doing well and will deliver on condition 2. If buyer(s) genuinely want it they will recognise their offer stands in competition with a longer term and higher share price the Board and will need to offer accordingly.

I think its about getting the short term sale and long term target prices correct, and then all is good.

......or is that me just being naive?

That's it. Had enough. i'm typing one thing on the screen which is correct, and when I press the 'post' button it mangles it....but you get the point. 2 conditions, first demanding a sale and a second requiring that the share price hit some target by a given date and remains at or above this level until the time of the vote on Directors remaining on the Board.

final attempt, then giving up!

That an agreed sale at a price in excess of
The share price on the open market achieves a minimum of p by and remains above this threshold until the date of election of Directors

Sorry again, there's something wrong with my keyboard or fingers (perhaps both). Here are the two conditions which didn't come across correctly:

Further to that we place on record that we will not support the re-election of incumbent Directors unless at least one or more of the conditions is satisfied :

- That an agreed sale at a price in excess of - The share price on the open market achieves a minimum of p by and remains above this threshold until the date of election of Directors

....so let's take positive action to protect and promote our interests.

Further to my suggestion below, here is a sketch of what could, in principle be delivered to the Board to focus their mind (emphasis - rough sketch, but put yourself in their position if something like this landed on the desk, and ask what would you do?).

All thoughts, comments and and suggestions welcome!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We, as holders of the majority of the shares in Proactis, acknowledge and thank the Board of Proactis for their efforts and hard work during the recent Formal sale Process. We share in their disappointment that a deal that could be recommended to shareholders could not be arrived at.
On a more positive note, we do share the Boards confidence and optimism in the future prospects of the company, and are heartened by the revisions to corporate governance announced in RNS 9087E dated 4th March 2020. Specifically :
- “To amend the Company's Articles of Association at the next General Meeting to require annual re-election for every director”
With that in mind, as the majority owners of the business, we require that :
- The next General Meeting be scheduled to take place no later than 31st April 2020, and if that cannot be achieved, the proposed changed in governance be adopted by executive action outside of the meeting on or before that date
- The election of Directors be undertaken by no later than 31st March 2021
Further to that we place on record that we will not support the re-election of incumbent Directors unless at least one or more of the conditions is satisfied :
- That an agreed sale at a price in excess of - The share price on the open market achieves a minimum of p by and remains above this threshold until the date of election of Directors

farhantahir - fair point, accepted and apologies.

My numbers were really just to make the argument, so please don't treat them too literally. It would be for the group to settle upon whatever they thought was sensible, credible, and would bring a coalition with sufficient voting power together. Given my holdings my influence in that discussion would be negligible. But I would like the Board to see their future being directly dependent on satisfying us as the owners rather than (perhaps) thinking so much about their individual circumstances and prospects.

sorry.....wrong button...here's the rest

- shareholders come together and if a group with sufficient voting rights to displace people can be formed a simple ultimatum be delivered. Within 12 months support for the board will be conditional on the SP reaching a minimum of 80p. It's a simple choice for them - deliver SP 80p or more and stay in post, fail and leave, or agree a sale of 80p+ with the best terms they can negotiate for themselves.

At least 2 out of those 3 options would suit me, and the third would too if better and more shareholder focused individuals were elected in their place.

bunco, I feel much the same. There was obviously real interest on the part of all parties for it to continue for so long.

Taverham (hello chap!) - agree, it's all about incentives. Perhaps the board were fearful of the implications for them of a deal that was good for shareholders (smacks of FlyBe...., but enough of that). With that in mind :

- - let's assume that a take over price might have been in the range 77p to 100pthe RNS states that board positions will be subject to election
- those members of the Board therefore need to be incentivised to deliver on behalf of shareholders rather than protect their position

The three members of the consortium probably have little trust in one another, and those on the outside little confidence in the integrity of them collectively given the history. The former are probably fighting like cats in a sack over their respective rights and entitlement to anything salvageable.

Don't see government coming to their aid. Already too many higher profile failures on the High Street to make me think loss of a few thousand jobs and loss of a name that few know is a real concern in Whitehall. And with the election only just out of the way, and a large Conservative majority, I don't see pressure from MPs in directly impacted constituencies yielding anything.

Let the three of them suck it up. Apologies and sympathies to hard working staff who have been treated no better than FLYB shareholders were.

Yep, i bought in suspecting the May government would fall, there would be a general election, that Labour had a good chance of winning and would necessarily have to buy lots of extra capacity to deliver a discernable improvement in waiting times. I got most of that wrong, although we do seem to have arrived in the same place even though the journey has been by a different path. Outcome is the same for investors, an upturn in prospects.