Member Info for Piler

Clabs - obviously not and I was simply pointing out that BW's statement was even more specific and as pro-shareholders as is conceivable. Taking your example up to 50% off could indeed mean 1% off without any contradiction. However, that was such a strong statement that ANY declination by the BOD to pursue any option other than that we're now facing could only be considered not just a contradiction but a grievous one. We don't know (yet) whether there was any...

"If you get a message from the BoD stating that ALL stakeholders will be protected to the greatest extent possible" To make maters worse, BW specifically said they'd protect the interests of shareholders, not just stakeholders, to the fullest extent possible. Did they?

"This company has gone the same way as ALL of its European peers. " But I thought the Yellow Pages was without peer? Oh, to have been a sound engineer at the BBC Radiophonic Workshop! Born too late - an ode to integrity!

Very interesting article!

Shareholders - as OWNERS of the company - will get to find out who the lenders were / are won't they? Only, if a CEO wilfully oversees / orchestrates / sanctions, etc., the surreptitious (as in silent - keeping shareholders in the dark) siphoning off of shareholders' hard earned into shadowy 'satellite' outfits with a view to placing the remaining, threadbare shell of the original mother company into admin. whilst said satellite outfits are taken private under the umbrella of a holding company then that's theft isn't it? The worse sort. The spineless, white collar variety, that, being so difficult to prove, more often than not goes unpunished and, as a result, often masquerades as legitimate business activity. "There are plenty of precedents for this" You ain't kidding - you need look no further than a former company of which MP was CEO for an example of one IF RUMOURS / SUSPICIONS ARE TRUE - now that's my disclaimer, so no accusations of libel please (or is it slander if the medium is electronic?). Wonder if the same crew he used then really have advised hibu? Anyway, as wongini asserts, there'd surely be one hell of a lot of -ve PR associated with any lender that was so intransigent as to leave shareholders with nothing (a relatively insignificant fraction of hibu's revenue even now could have afforded an offering of a couple of pence or so) under circumstances as 'cloudy' as these. Bring on the EGM!

In fairness to BP, if I recall correctly, he did state that if the BOD have acted illegally he hopes they lose their houses or words to that effect, but his question simply can't be answered at this stage because we' don't know what was discussed during the - ahem - restructuring talks (and the BOD seem to be playing silly bug*ers re. granting access to any minutes of them that were taken). We don't know whether lenders would be amenable, following major changes to the constitution of the BOD, to eleventh hour amendments to what has been proposed, and I fail to see how it would be in their (the lenders') interests to put the whole group into admin. (and the current BOD surely couldn't do this autonomously). Oh 'ello, what's this - David Booowie in a TV ad. on Ch. 4 sat at a piano next to some lovely looking girly?!

"The 10 are doing nothing for me or any member of hsg or shareholders of hibu. " You're using the present tense, and - playing devil's advocate slightly - most of us don't know what they'll do for shareholders if / when they are appointed. What we can say with CERTAINTY, however, is the present BOD will do absolutely nothing, and their continuation will result in shareholders being left with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. So, not even on the balance of probability, then, it's a no-brainer to my mind to replace them.

Actually, now I think about it, the scenario was of the BOD or CEO claiming they had developed a pill that cures baldness, not merely that they had discovered a cure for baldness. The difference is subtle but significant as it's not always possible to deliver on discoveries. Anyway, thanks for your vote of support should it transpire that they've acted illegally - I've a feeling the EGM is going to be very interesting! Signing off for a bit.

"I cite the dude who stated that if a PLC CEO or chairman said that his company had discovered the cure for baldness he would invest without doing any other research!!!" I'm the dude in question BP, and I did go on to say I wouldn't take anything directors say at face value again (you don't start off with experience), but I was being deliberately provocative by making such an extreme statement to illustrate how it SHOULD be - i.e., that directors should be accountable for everything they say and do in an official capacity. Call me Forrest Gump by all means but is that so unreasonable? And reasonableness will surely play a large part in any legal action pursued by the hSG should it come to that.

"The board AND the vulture funds have said they will put the company into administration". Where's your evidence of this? "That will be legal." If instigated by the lenders - yes, otherwise I'm not so sure. At which of the four inns did you study law? "they are the incompetent ones or are they????????" Just read that back to yourself!

"More than likely the company would be put in to administration at the say so of the lenders, as stated in the doc." Well that would be their call and I don't see why it would be likely, let alone more than likely. In any event, experience of running a PLC seems to have been of diddly squat use here. Let me ask you a question - given Wigley's pledge to protect shareholder value to the fullest extent possible (and I believe that's verbatim) only for it be completely (but not irreversibly as yet) destroyed (so they FAILED completely in this respect) and the fact that NO proposed new game-changing products were launched throughout their tenure after all (as the company atrophied over this extended period of 'discussions' and job security for all at hibu must have been compromised as a result), just what criteria do you think they used (if they used any) to gauge success and justify the bonuses they awarded themselves?

Well hindsight's a wonderful thing Clabs, and I suppose I won't really take the utterances of directors at face value again, but precedent isn't made through apathy and I fail to see why anyone other than those who've personally profited from this fiasco wouldn't be rooting for us. It certainly isn't selfish to seek redress in the face of what's happened - I've really not lost a great deal in the scheme of things here but others have. And wasn't the bleating you refer to nothing more than an understandably excited response to the claims and statements made repeatedly by the BOD? Anyway, roll on the EGM.

Our own selfish needs when they were advised by the very outfit responsible for people well into their seventies and eighties having to tend bars and wait on tables in the US after their pensions were decimated? When those at the helm paid themselves individually more in bonuses in a single year than many nurses will make in a lifetime after bringing the company to this juncture? What about pension funds this side of the pond invested in hibu (mine isn't and I'm a fair few years off drawing it, I hasten to add)? Are you having a Turkish Clabs? Re. awful investment decisions, if the CEO of a publicly traded company said they had developed a pill that cures baldness or makes your pecker twice as big I would invest in a shot given the chance. And you know what - I would do NO additional research whatsoever. You know why? Because the CEO of this publicly traded company had claimed they had developed a pill that cures baldness or makes your pecker twice as big, and that is obviously enough because - being a publicly traded company - if this turns out to be BS I have redress. Don't I? I mean surely I do?

As I understand it (though I have no formal legal training), malicious intent and inherent unfairness need to be proven / shown for a defamation charge to hold water. I reckon they might have their work cut out (not that we should chance it, of course)!

"It was a greedy move by the secret 10, did they seriously believe that they would get the better of some of the best paid brains in the business ." It wasn't and there's no secrecy (oh, and the notion that the highest paid are the most competent is ludicrous anyway)! "Their profiles just don`t stack up " Oh yes they do, and if they were / are shrouded in secrecy as you claim then how would you know anything about them? Simple question.

"Should a material number of the Proposed Directors be appointed at the General Meeting or the Company determine that this is likely to occur, it is expected that the Company will be placed into administration." At the behest of WHOM? This - I feel - is an important question, as I can't see why the lenders would want this and if we can establish that this would be the mindset of the current BOD then we surely have yet more strong evidence that they've not had shareholders' best interests at heart. Sorry to read about the extent of your losses by the way Buster. Chin up mate - the ball's well and truly rolling.

Nice analogy - made me chuckle

Well said KNIGELK. To those who are voicing unwarranted suspicions about the motives of the hSG, what other approaches do you think can / should be taken in all reasonableness at such a late stage in an attempt to protect the interests of shareholders? You do realise, don't you, that the hSG had the door slammed firmly and unceremoniously in its face not so long ago by the current BOD for having the audacity to merely invite them to discuss the situation and shed further light on how it arose?

By "The Group" I mean us, by the way - not them!

Following up on sirocco's post with a serious one from me for the first time in a while, I suggest that shareholders who've yet to join the hSG take a moment to contemplate the significance of such a former FTSE 100 organisation being forced into holding an EGM against its will by private investors, be alert in the meantime to publicly reported points of contention raised by The Group, and consider what you may stand to gain (I'll be positive!) through membership.