Member Info for Pianista

We should find out tomorrow if someone is building a position. However, the large turnover could easily be explained by shareholders grabbing an opportunity to recoup their losses.

In fact, I almost bought 100k at 3p myself, in which case I'd now be sitting on a profit of £3k, which would not be much consolation.

Like me, many shareholders would need to buy 500k or 1M shares to make decent inroads into their losses, and I suspect that many have been tempted - it wouldn't take many such trades to account for today's large turnover.

Tav - done some digging, it looks like the lawyers are Norton Rose.

Tav - we need to work up a case, but not thro this BB. May make sense for Hoskings to somehow be the focus of all our efforts.

I cannot see why anyone would want to take on the plc, after it becomes a mere shell, except it will probably continue to have legal title to various of the group's real estate, intellectual property etc., and various other obscure legal connections with group companies.

A legal minefield probably that most people would not want to touch with a barge pole.

Could/should this be added:

Notes 40 and 41 to the Annual Report dated 18 June 2018
In relation to the parent company:
“Investments and amounts due from intercompany receivables have been tested for impairment using forecast cash flows of Flybe Limited”.
As a result, no impairment was booked against these assets, which were shown in the parent company balance sheet at £60m and £178m respectively, ie a total of £238m.
Less than seven months later, under its updated offer, Connect proposes to directly acquire the investments, presumably at fair value, before acquiring the parent company - which has no other material assets or liabilities - for just £2m.
This apparent destruction of value overnight requires explanation.

Taverham, someone who obviously knows who they are is Mark Kleinman! Maybe message him on Twitter?

As for the SP rocketing, people are betting on the Hoskings challenge being successful, AND the offer being upped as a consequence. I think there's a good chance of the first, but not of the second, as I've explained to HeresHopin,

HeresHopin: "Perhaps the consortium will "without prejudice" make a higher offer"

The problem is, about one third of shareholders got out on day 1, that's probably increased to at least two thirds by now.

So an increase in the offer at this stage would not solve the problem, because it wouldn't provide any redress for those shareholders. It would mostly reward recently-arrived speculators who have no beef with the consortium anyway, and will make those shareholders who have sold at a loss even more determined to fight for justice through a class action.

It would be more logical and cheaper to target any efforts to make amends to the people who have cause for complaint, viz all shareholders at the time of the offer.

And as you say, an increased offer at this stage would look like an admission of wrongdoing. This would strengthen the hand of aggrieved shareholders in any class action, which will also benefit from any success that Hoskings have in the courts.

So potentially very messy and costly for the consortium, which is why I think it would be best for them to cut through the mess by launching a compensation scheme for those who held shares at the time of the offer.

No doubt planned before news of the Hoskings challenge, and difficult to change. Also, postponement would be seen as a sign of weakness.

Taverham - I'm not 100% clear on how class actions are initiated, but I believe the Hoskings lawyers could turn their own challenge into a class action at some point, in which case there is nothing for us todo except maybe to opt in or opt out.

I for one have sent a supportive email to Hoskings saying that I would like to opt in to any class action.

"Equally, I'm intrigued by the idea of Flybe Ltd being sold and Flybe PLC shareholders (i.e. us) blocking the bid and then sitting on £178 million in the form of debt owed by Flybe Ltd."

So am I. Nothing has been said in the RNSs about the intercompany debt. On the face of it, if it's not repaid, plc could force the liquidation of the trading company, and recover £10s of millions. Bizarre!

Hardly warranted an RNS, but then you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't!

With respect, I'm merely telling it how it is.

I'm very well aware of what the auditors said in November about the risks to the going concern basis. However, I repeat, the BOD have never said the company cannot continue as a going concern.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your quotation, because it certainly does not support your belief that the company actually ceased to be a going concern.

Who is buying and why? The same people who buy lottery tickets. Any penny share will attract speculators who know nothing about the company, or where it, or its share price, will end up in the short/ long term. The Hoskings challenge is a game-changer which makes it almost impossible to say how things will pan out for Flybe and its SP.

The bidders must be agonising over their options as we speak. However, aborting the takeover would be an embarrassing and messy climb down - they've already advanced £10m to Flybe, the Gatwick slots are already sold, etc - and half way towards an admission of wrongdoing.

It would be cheaper and more efficient for them to proceed with the takeover, but mollify the shareholders who've suffered loss by launching a compensation scheme. Failing that, assuming Hoskings don't go for an injunction in order to pursue their preferred alternatives for Flybe (if any), it would make sense for us to join with them in a class action. I for one would be more than willing to chip in.

Drofdarf - it bodes well for us, as per my recent posts.

This £7k per hour figure is from a sensationalist headline in the Independent which they routinely repeat from time to time. However, it depends on what you mean by "burning" cash. If you regard this as including cash which becomes restricted by the credit card acquirers, then yes, it is or was about £7k per hour. If not, it was only about half that figure.

As regards the recent worsening of the cash position, all we have to go on is the odd announcement from a management which can no longer be trusted to keep us properly informed. One can be forgiven for suspecting therefore that they are painting the bleakest possible picture here, in order to justify their appalling deal.

I won't be satisfied until all relevant communications between the company, the credit card acquirers, the bidders and the advisers have been laid bare.

You suffered loss as a result of the actions of Flybe and Connect. The fact you have since sold your shares makes no difference to your right to claim, or receive, compensation in due course.

Hoskins undoubtedly have a very strong case, and I only hope they pursue it with all vigour - to the point that Flybe/Connect see sense, and make arrangements to pay compensation to all shareholders registered at 8am on 11.1.19 without being forced to do by the courts.

Thanks Tiger.

I take your point about Connect being liable for any debts of Flybe - provided the bid still goes ahead of course.

If it doesn't, we're reliant on Flybe and/or its directors to pay the compensation, unless Connect is implicated.

Directors' liability is normally covered by insurance, but the amount of cover would need to be potentially £30m. I suppose there could also be some get-outs in the small print, excesses etc.

Hence the attractions of focussing on Connect, which I feel sure we can. After all, they were in receipt of inside information, which they used in such a way as to cause us loss. So even if they abort the bid, they are on the hook to us.

What is so amazing in all this, is that the people involved could all fall flat on their face despite having shelled out £5m in advisers' fees.

The good news is, this saga looks like it's going to keep us entertained for a few more months, but hopefully not years!

Stunning news, but having researched the Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTR) of the FCA last week which I was about to share privately, I’m not too surprised.

The key point for me is that Connect were clearly told about the greatly increased demands of credit card acquirers, because that was material to the price they were able to offer (whilst not actually material to the value they were getting). Meanwhile, Flybe failed to disclose this inside information to shareholders “as soon as possible” as stipulated by the DTR, as a direct result of which we, the shareholders at 8am on 11.1.19, have suffered loss.

The important thing for that set of shareholders at this stage is not whether the bid goes ahead or not – it may not be possible to stop it - rather whether there is a case against Flybe and/or Connect that will see those shareholders being somehow compensated at the end of the day.

If it is proven through Hoskins that we were kept in the dark, then this will give us the perfect evidence to get that compensation, if indeed it is not offered to us automatically.

Hopefully Connect will also be implicated through their collusion, because the mechanism for compensation will then presumably be payments of at least 16.5p per share - less any sale proceeds received, or to be received - to all shareholders on the register at 8am on 11.1.19.

BTW, this Hoskins challenge should also shut up the gloating holier-than-thou posters like A.smithy.

Why should there be a suspension?

Thanks turnstyler, not so many PIs left in this these days, so we're probably talking to ourselves.

Looks like DX need to reminded that "turnover is vanity, profit is sanity" when it comes to these sofa contracts. Let's hope though that DX is getting more right than they're getting wrong!

Even if they are, 40p would seem to be a long way off, but most long-suffering PIs would be happy with just 20p. If the quickest way of achieving that is a takeover by Clipper, then so be it. The chairman of DX is a NED at Clipper, so it must have crossed his mind. But Gatemore, who hold around 35% of DX, would have to agree to it of course, and it was them that put a spanner in the works of the proposed Menzies takeover.