Member Info for Piler

I think it's the highest price in the last 12 months, Eddie, and there is the concern that they could be dragging this out to reduce the amount they'd have to pay (there can be the option of having this requirement waived)

All this talk of ads made me think of the one for R Whites (lemonade) years ago. So long ago, in fact, I can barely remember it. But what I do recall clearly is the sudden, unexpected appearance John McEnroe makes in it right at the end. As I recall he was even wearing a headband. How cool is that? I loved it me (the ad AND the lemo.!)

Oh, and re. shorters getting burned, don't forget the New World Oil and Gas fiasco (forward selling before the requisite vote to pass the placing had been voted for at a GM)! I wonder if anyone was taken to task over that. Probably not.

"There are always some who will allow their shares to be "borrowed" rustybucket - permission isn't necessary and brokers loan out their client's shares all the time (if they're held in a nominee account). I've asked on several occasions on several boards now whether placing a limit order (to sell at some ridiculously high price) prevents this but have yet to receive any semblance of an informed response. By the way, Blackrock getting hoisted by their own petard (in a sense - I remember that) was quite amusing!

"than you or me" not "than you or I"

"The CEO is a decent guy and has an MBE to show for it"?!! Well having an MBE, I guess he'll be fast-tracked through the Pearly Gates then. C'mon!

Well you can't say fairer than that BP. Love Spain but never been to Barcelona, by the way. Last time I strolled down Gran Via similar approaches were made to me but the price was quite a bit higher. Capital cities eh (won't get into the politics here!)? Anyway, I declined - they're a little too carnivorous over there, I think, to be offering such unsolicited services. Enjoy the rest of the weekend and thanks for the well wishes. We'll see. Definitely signing off for a bit now.

I just caught a repeat of Celebrity Who Wants To Be A Millionaire on Challenge, and, with the help of Freddie Forsyth, they answered correctly that Brutus (not Cassius, Caesar or the other answer I can't remember) was described as the noblest Roman of all. I knew that too purely because the work in question was on our reading list at school, and it made me consider whether Wigley has inadvertently played the role of Brutus in all this to Pocock's Cassius: "Let me have men about me that are fat Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights Yond' Cassius has a lean and hungry look He thinks too much: such men are dangerous" Only I still find it hard to believe he'd have made such a strong pledge to safeguard...., etc., only for shareholders to have been kept completely in the dark if his strings weren't being pulled. Might check back in here next week if it (this BB) hasn't been pulled following this week's 'developments'.

It's not over yet so don't give up hope, though I realise It may seem to be if you haven't been privvy to some of the discussions and findings of the hSG. Suffice it to say for the time being that all seems to have most certainly not been above board, though all you can really do now is wait and see (and watch this space, I suppose, for as long as it continues to be maintained). I note that BP never responded to the question I posed re. the legal requirement of a publicly listed company to convene a GM to address the issue of reduced net assets under the circumstances I described - that's just a taster. Try to have a pleasant weekend.

Correction - meant "once the net assets of the company falls below half the value of the issued share capital." The question is still valid.

Well what about the legal requirement for a publicly listed company to convene a General Meeting as soon as is practicable after its market capitalisation falls below half the value of the issued share capital. I repeat - that is a LEGAL requirement. Do you think this manoeuvre discharges their obligation in respect of that?

"I didn't realise they'd broken the law." Evidently.

...and why should they wish to do so if they've nothing to hide?

...did anyone catch the banner at the top of this board advertising the services of Yell earlier today? BP - my turn with a question: by what right does the BOD even adjourn let alone cancel the EGM (which I gather technically no longer means anything - seems they're all GMs)?

Meant "Their response...", of course - PC is playing up!

"HSG directors should have spent more time and focus on the FCA complaint route" Sorry but you are talking ****** - if the FCA were currently investigating hibu we (and you, unless you're with them) wouldn't know about it until the investigation had finished! There response to my concerns via my MP was quite enlightening.

"I am not lining others pockets" Uh????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've got news for you...

I don't keep replying to my posts - I've done it once in the past two weeks (and I can't be bothered checking further back than that) and that was just to correct a confusing typo. "Am interested what you thing Big Bad Bob should have got out of the lenders for the shareholders" That's another question we can't answer without knowing what was on the table. And, re. "Big Bad Bob", it's certainly occurred to me that he and / or other senior board members might have (also!) been the victims of sharp practice and manipulation bordering on the Mephistophelean, but - if so - surely this would have been all the more reason to let shareholders know precisely what happened. Why wouldn't he / they? Professional pride, embarrassment or vanity? Surely you can understand why shareholders aren't satisfied, having been told that they'd look out for us as much as possible only to hear absolutely nothing from them after the "little or no value statement" (which came too late for essentially everyone invested as the SP had already nosedived by then), with a single RNS basically saying sorry but you get zilch and that's all folks. And there is another rather irritating aspect to all this - namely that his haircut makes him look like he's wearing a crash helmet.

Meant "And I won't buy"!

And another thing - if they really did protect shareholders' interests to the fullest extent possible and there was no funny business involved, why all the secrecy and why the hell are they giving shareholders who wish to see all minutes of the restructuring talks taken the runaround (as detailed in the latest circular to shareholders who've requested access to them)? Personally, if I'd made such a strong statement and had acted in accordance with it and had nothing to hide I'd want a full account of the talks to be readily available to all if for no other reason than to cover my own back. And I won't but any BS about the lenders preventing this through a strict confidentiality clause under these circumstances.