Member Info for Pianista

...is due this week. But will they bother?

Flybe didn't have the courtesy to say when they expect to send out the notices, but they have 3 weeks in which to do so, and the EGM (technically a "General Meeting") won't take place for at least 2 weeks after that (if the last one is anything to go by).

This takes us well beyond the deadline for completion of the divestment, namely 22 Feb. (Personally, I think the divestment will happen well before that).

As things stand, therefore, the parent company will be a shell by the time of any change of directors, and reversing the divestment would be like trying to unscramble an egg. It's not going to happen.

So, unless Hoskings apply for an injunction to stop the deal, there are no implications here for the future of Flybe.

This is all about Hoskings advancing their claim - and the claims of others - for damages.

Today's rise is pure ramping by ignoramuses, plus some strategic buying in advance of the EGM probably.

Ox42 - 10pps would indeed still be low, but I'm just saying, it might have been enough to stop shareholders mobilising.

I agree EC. I think they'd have got away with offering 10pps, or £21m for the company - chicken feed in the greater scheme of things. Their greed will be their undoing.

"no point in Hosking seeking an EGM specifically to replace the Chairman". I think there is: to take control of the investigation.

Who will pay damages? Depends on the outcome of the investigation. Could be the BOD (or their insurers), or Connect, or an adviser, or some other party involved....who knows?

If the Sky article is accurate, Hoskings aren’t trying to stop the deal (there’s no suggestion of an injunction), rather they are just trying to beef up their case – and by extension our case - for damages.

Because although the parent company may be just a shell by the time of the EGM, it will still have, as its most important asset, its books and records, which will be freely available to the new chairman. This is a clever move, therefore, by Hoskings, because it will enable them to take control of an investigation into the sale process.

Flybe’s response, namely that the deal was “best for shareholders”, is significant. In the original announcements by Flybe, the shareholders didn’t even exist in their eyes. They only referred to “safeguarding employees, pensioners and creditors”, so an interesting change of emphasis here, indicating that the company is on the defensive.

As for the SP, this latest move by Hoskings will probably give the gamblers renewed hope that the deal will be scuppered. Greedy MMs will do nothing to discourage that, so it could be another volatile week on the market based on absolutely nothing of substance. What would worry me if I still held shares is that an RNS confirming the divestment could appear at any moment, and once that happens there’ll be no going back - 1p here we come.

So let's see what this week's batch of RNSs say...

The impression given by the Thursday RNS was “this deal is definitely happening”. The wording was very positive (“is to sell”, “progressing with these conditions”, “expected to complete” etc). They may have thrown in an “if” at one point, but that’s only because the SPA conditional.

It’s standard wording in SPAs to say that “seller has authority”.

Maybe I've missed something important on this cluttered BB.

Thanks Ox42. I didn't appreciate what was going on behind the scenes, and still don't really.

But you aren't saying that Keith doesn't have a case against the BOD etc, are you?

Ox42, you've lost me I'm afraid. Could you please explain?

I'll try one more time.

We were only told about the situation as at 30/9 on 14/11 because results are obviously never announced on the last day of the accounting period.

And, yes, we were told that it was important that the demands of the card acquirers would not significantly increase.

Well, crucially their demands DID significantly increase, and that changed everything apparently.

When were we told that?

...got rid of 4M shares yesterday. Not expecting an increased offer clearly. Will no doubt be keen to participate in a class action.

Exactly Starance. Do you agree, Souldoubt?

962.....But knowing how these shysters operate, I suspect they'll rush it through - their last RNS was saying "don't say we didn't warn you".

Then it's over to the lawyers and the regulators. That's where the "fat lady" comes in.

Skywalker - the deal to divest the business could complete at any moment. There aren't "many conditions" - my post last night refers.

The SPA is on the Flybe website (not sure when it went up). Section 5 contains just 3 conditions. These are basically:

- That Connect and the Flybe pension fund have agreed a funding plan
- That Connect has achieved exemption from reporting the transaction to the EU/Jersey authorities
- That no liquidation or administration of any Flybe company has commenced in the meantime

The SPA also confirms that the investments and intercompany receivables, totalling c£240m, in the books of the parent, will be eliminated from its balance sheet by completion: plc will be left with around £2m in the bank, which would yield around 1p per share if wound up instead of sold to Connect for 1p.

Given the limited number and nature of the conditions, I suspect the sale of the trading companies will complete well before the deadline of 22 Feb 2019 (which will probably leave Hoskings seeking damages rather than an injunction).

So brace, brace! There could be an RNS confirming the divestment at any moment, at which point I would expect the share price to tank.

It would be a brave man to rule out any more twists and turns though!

If there isn't, there needs to be (eg 3 per poster). Otherwise, constructive posts get drowned out.

The same questions are being asked again and again, when the answers are already there - but buried.

And having a daily limit will improve the quality of the posts.

My reading of the accounts is that there is nothing at group level.

The RNS of 15th said "main trading company", which includes all businesses, directly or indirectly.

So I don't think there is anything suspicious here - for a change!

I agree Tav that the RNS - which adds nothing of substance - is effectively a warning to all the newly-arrived gamblers, many of whom won't have bothered to properly study previous RNSs.

The company is saying "we are as bemused by the rise as anyone else".

It would be nice to know how the lawyers see things playing out, in particular do they see the Hoskings challenge as a precursor to a class action, in which case what, if anything, do we need to do to join in, and will they seek or take into account submissions from people like you, Tav, Ox42 et al, who have potentially useful contributions to make?

It could even be that making it a class action will increase their chance of success.