Member Info for Metamorphosis84

"at the end of the day "normal" folk have to believe the RNSs issued and the contents there in"

For crying out loud, the Rns on 22nd March told "normal" folk "result in no equity value for the company's current shareholders".
Then, when consent solicitation was agreed another Rns was issued:
"Result in no equity value for the company's current shareholders"

So what part of "no equity value" made people go out and buy equity in Debenhams.

Same people scratching their heads.

Still banging on about the takeover code.

It only applies to 'bona fide' offers.

Indivior were demerged from RB

I am no expert, but the first problem as I see it is this: Who would the legal case be made against? The Debenhams of yesterday morning no longer exist. So the lenders? But SPD have acknowledged no illegality. As for a moral case, well who here looks towards SPD and MA as being paragons of moral vitue? Anyone?

So Wooton was on Radio 4 this morning:

"Chris Wootton, Sports Direct's deputy Chief Financial Officer, has spoken to Radio 4.

He says that while Debenhams' decision to go into pre-pack administration was legal - "morally it is not correct".

Mr Wootton thinks the board "have absolutely not carried out their fiduciary duties" towards shareholders, who were wiped out in the process.

He says Mike Ashley's firm is considering suing Debenhams, and insists this is more than an idle threat."

So we have gone from threatening legal action, to acknowledging that pre pack was legal, to threatening legal action.

It seems apparent to me that this is just an attention seeking thing now, more noise to keep the show on the road.

Alarming drop today- is this Indivior connected?

Yeah not fair Apple, boo hoo.

Don't think anyone is going to holding a candlelight vigil for you after all your ramping recently.

The restructuring has been completed, thats what happened.

Because in top of buying the equity he would have to stump up millions still to clear the debt. In a company that doesn't make a profit.
He would never make the money back.
Like we have been saying for weeks.

"So what about this 22nd April day ?"
Dead in the water, like we have been saying for a while now.

"Should have his lawyers at the High Court right now to oppose any prepack.

How can this BOD make out they are unable to carry on with £101m in their account and rents paid?"

Yeah Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and so on all in the dock demanding lie detector tests.

FTI have been appointed.

Please, enough of this nonsense about Takeovers.

" is it really likely that a pre-pack would be granted before the 22nd April or before MA has stated that he is not going to make an offer?"

Yes.

Why?

Because any offer (or in this case possible offer) has to be bona fide. Mickey Mouse offers don't count.

Well the descent continues. 300 before the new boss gets in?

What's the point of the "I told you so" posts? Gloating? We all knew the risks. some stayed in. Some sold out. It was there decision but have some thought because one day it could happen to you. The employees must be so worried too which is rarely mentioned here..."

Whats the point of the "bid inbound" "shorters gonna burn" "this will be 5p imo" "shorters are evil" on so on posts? That we have suffered daily without any reason or debate.
Especially over the weekend when any rational debate was being shouted down by the same pillock posting every 2 minutes.
What was the point?

Yep, "told you so" springs to mind.

Oh, too bad.

How generous of the Bod to give a huge chance to get the hell out!!!

Brief summary. 8th April was a real deadline. There will be no extension. SpD have had another madcap proposal rejected. More news to come. Share will be traded today?

This Takeover Code thing that is suddenly being banded around, you have seen the bit about offers having to be bona fide? Right? So which of these actions would lead you to think that a bona fide offer is coming?
Demanding to be made Ceo
Making an offer of a loan, incumbent on being made Ceo
Making an offer for a Danish part of the business, on the priviso that MA is made ceo

You see where this is going yet?

Suggesting that a "possible offer" might be made, as long as MA is made ceo first
Offerring to possibly underwrite an RI, with the lenders taking a hair cut, as long as MA is made ceo

Saying that those involved in negotiations should be sent to prison
Knocking up a template for other shareholders to demand that MA is made ceo.
Suggesting that the bod should take lie detector tests (my favourite)

Does any of that behaviour suggest that a 'bona fide' offer should be forthcoming?