Member Info for moxx

Jefff- Blimey you're even more cynical than a knarly old former market-maker like me.

Apollo may be very well funded but they may not be the smoothest operators when it comes to buying their prey.

Exhibit: Woods plc--- initial bid in January 200p -- 4 months later, and now on 5th proposal 240p is their latest bid.

So, we may either have repeated step movement action re: their THG bid--- say 150p then 175p then 188p then 195p for example or if they don't want to repeat the chasing---they might have to go large---from the off. I dream of 200p plus--- but I suspect I am being overly optimistic.

Chaiwala, let's agree to disagree, like grown ups. I hear what you say but I think you are manifestly wrong.
And though I am humble enough to know I make mistakes, it doesn't mean I, or others who respectfully disagree, should be characterised as idiots. Best wishes!

I ll keep my 4m shares in a dusty drawer for now-- in wistful hope that the scheming owners know what they are doing.....

Trout, thanks for taking the time to explain some issues, as a holder of 4m shares, it might not be what I want to hear but you have clearly given some thought to this. I now expect to write these off as a complete loss, I might frame the share certificates as a reminder to do do my homework more thoroughly!

With a few million of these shares, I would love that to happen but I am not that optimistic. If I see 0.32 I'd probably be out.
My concern is that to achieve its great plans, DKE will need ever more capital and share dilution.

Gallows humour that lot. Have a look at what is opposite Peter Doyles correspondence address.

@Billclinton
That's a shocker.
Btw here is a reminder of ING's compliance pledge from their website.

ING is committed to the preservation of its reputation and integrity through compliance with applicable laws, regulations and ethical standards in each of the markets in which it operates. All employees are expected to adhere to these laws, regulations and ethical standards, and management is responsible for ensuring such compliance. Compliance is therefore an essential ingredient of good corporate governance.

The classic line : NQ Mineral's Chairman, David Lenigas, said; "This refinancing facility with ING represents the culmination of nearly a year's extensive due diligence with both the bank and Traxys.
Nearly a year of DD and a major Investment Bank did not realise they obtained security through deception? As normal citizens, we wouldn't buy a house without checking the vendor had the right to sell it.

Strategically, legal cases are a pain in the proverbial. Perhaps,the quickest tactical resolution is bringing pain on the institutions who stand to lose the most, moral, financial or reputational.
I would argue any investment bank seen to be short changing bondolders whether by design or lack of proper due dilligence procedure may ultimately prefer to settle rather than have their very business ethos examined in court. They are supposed to be paragons of virtue, especially when European and British tax payer funds have been used multiple times to support them.
As I said earlier, I fail to see how any serious financial institution would not query the quality and ownership of any collateral offered in lieu of a large loan facility. The compliance & risk teams in banks run into the thousands. If the DD process was correctly undertaken, it would be easy to recognise the moral and ethical dilemmas that would occur, in taking over collateral without a proper and transparent vote. The reputational risk is not worth it for multi-billion Euro organisations. And if the process was crooked from within the bank, then it really does open up a can of worms for them.

I get the feeling, one is going to have something very close to or equal to libellous about Lenigas and his merry crew to goad a reaction and the legal exposure, this affair requires.
I mean if you try to take an extremely generous view and say NQ's board were in over their heads and they mistakenly double pledged the bondholders' security, it would sound like I was talking about my
8 year old niece rather than supposedly sophisticated business people.
And surely the bank when offered the security must have asked how for such an indebted company, no one else had claims on those assets, worse when they were told the bondholders had voted to lower their security, did they not ask how and why? Is that not why banks have huge compliance departments? I mean all these organisations have corporate mantras about being fair in business. Now I am not letting the board off, but as the most sophisticated investor in the room, how could the bank, think this was a fair deal that would not have ethical repercussions later? HEADLINE:Large bank takes away bondholders security without making an offer or scrutinising vote but thinks its legal. I mean think about it, you don't buy a house without checking its the vendor's to sell!

@latvianPrince, thanks for revealing these machinations, which unfortunately have a serious dose of credibility. At the time of the proposed refinancing I was carrying our DD on the bond for some investors and delayed any decision till there was some clarity. The distrubutor at the time mumbled something about first vote not having enough bodies and a need to recovene later. The weird thing is if you were ING and thinking ethically, why not make an offer to buy out bondholders who you presumably knew had mine assets as security, unless you planned a sleight of hand (even for a bank that would be low) or you were misled by the board? Double pleding security is the bane of the alternatives world.