Member Info for OofyProsser

Very amusing, Ocelot. You’ll never learn anything if you filter people with whose views you don’t agree.

Angus can’t sell Poundland without the approval of its lender. I doubt that anyone would want it at a valuation that paid off the company’s debts and left something for the shareholders. In any case, Trafigura could take over the assets whenever they wanted. Why do you think they haven’t done so?

Crocqman: re default, you simply refuse to face the fact. No one has to say they’re in default for them to be in default. The fact they’ve missed interest payments means they’re in default. It’s a fact, there’s no point your trying to argue with it. Look it up. I’m only posting still because Ocelot and her colleagues continue to try to persuade the bb that black is white.

I make no apology for “Trappists” and “Poundland”. This is not a serious company - never has been as far as I can see. They paid a pound for Saltfleetby and the Board has been in purdah for many months. “Trappist” is a useful shorthand, in the circumstances.

It’s true that my references to the company’s valuation are my own opinion. I suggest you wait until it comes out of suspension before you comment further on my opinion, unless you give reasons for thinking my view is wrong. I’m happy to debate it with you.

Mirasol: Ocelot appears to be floundering. Her latest forays have been desperate. Does this mean that the RTO is a red herring?

If there was a leak, as they claimed, it can only have come from an insider. There should have been an investigation and appropriate action taken - small investors should not have been penalised with a share suspension. What’s going on here is beyond ridiculous.

Ocelot: if Poundland were worth even a fraction of your valuation, the Trappists on charge of It would have sold it as quickly as they could. The value of the reserves means nothing if they cost more than that to get out of the ground. This argument is childish.

Angus is clearly worth less than its market capitalisation at the time of the share suspension.

That’s from the lender’s point of view, not the market’s, nor that if the dictionary definition. No forebearance hss been announced. Angus is at the mercy of its lender, who can exercise the terms of the charge whenever he wants. Angus is in default.

Stockraiser: your “Unlike a payment default, where the borrower misses a principal or interest payment” - you rather make the point, don’t you? Angus is in default. Much more serious than a technical default.

Oh dear.

Angus is in default.. Its lender, Trafigura, can exercise its charge whenever it likes. It could not do this if Angus had nor defaulted. Declaring a default is just the first step in exercising the terms of the charge. No. Trafigura has not declared a default but it can do so at the drop of a ha - and shareholders will in all likelihood be wiped out

I’ve explained this a number of times now. I dare say Ocelot and her fellows will carry on their futile opposition. I don’t intend to waste more time on them.

I see that Ocelot persists in asserting that Angus is not in default. She claimed a while ago that she had filtered me so I suppose this may explain her error.

To clarify: a company that misses a payment of interest or capital is in default. The company to which they have defaulted then decides whether or not to take the appropriate legal action to get their money. The first step in this is to declare a default.

It’s quite true that Trafigura has not declared a default. Angus is nevertheless in default. Trafigura can take what steps it likes at any time to enforce its claims under the loan agreement.

Mullins: English doesn’t appear to be yours.

Correction: for”whoever has” please read “whoever may have”. I’m not suggesting impropriety has occurred, but I do suggest that the authorities should have a precautionary look-see.

Not only that, HITS, but the share suspension arose from the same dodgy source. Angus shares should be trading, the suspension.suits only whoever has put up Angus shares as collateral for a loan. In other words, insiders.

Yes, must be the intern..

Mirasol: in the absence of the Lords Lucan and Ckanwilliam, I doubt any of the present Board would pass muster with the Membership Committee of these clubs. Absolute outsiders, what? I mean to say..

Ocelot, please.. Dear oh dear.

One should also have to take into account that Angus is in default and its creditor is in a position to exercise its charge. If Trafigura doesn’t think Angus’s value justifies doing this, why wouid anyone pay a premium to the suspension price to buy it? Anyone doing an RTO would have at least to be prepared to pay off Angus’s debts. Since, as Bubblepoint points out, these amount to close to 2.5x the market capitalisation, why should the current shareholders expect to receive anything for their investment, never mind a premium.

Mirasol: while I’m no fan of the tight-lipped ‘Erbert, I think it’s unkind to put him in the same category as the rest of these no-hopers. I think it’s quite likely he wasn’t fully aware of what he was getting himself into when he accepted the role. He virtually disappeared for the final year of his tenure and who can blame him? I don’t know what effect, if any, the experience will have had on his amour propre.

Re Ckanwilliam, you only have to look at the experience of investors in NMC, where he was a Director, to realise that it was a title and a reputation as a biddable bon-vivant that secured the job for him. Lucan suffered from indecision in his early days in the job and never recovered. They were all economical with the actualitê.

.

Mirasol: have you seen a notice stating that “Other material considerations" include the need to obtain approval from the market authorities so that the offeror is not obliged to make an offer for all of Angus's share capital.”?

Ocelot: I can’t find the” materiel consideration” detailed in your second paragraph in any RNS.

Would you point me to the announcement, please?

Ocelot: are you suggesting that Kemexon Limited or Forum is going to bid for Angus?

Mirasol: they’ll probably try to get back the £1 they paid for Saltfleetby.