Member Info for Piler

Giving you the benefit of the doubt (because it seems you've an awful lot of catching up to do), if there's any justice in the world you won't have lost everything. However, "if" is the question (and that Rudyard Kipling was indeed a holier than thou and patronising so and so wasn't he?). The BOD, IN MY HONEST OPINION, have misled, displayed incompetence, been steered by conflicts of interest and might even have been in cahoots with lenders in order to engineer the current situation with a view to shafting shareholders. If you can prove your holding (even given the current status of shares) I suggest strongly you register with the hibu shareholders group. Send an e-mail and said proof along with that of ID and address to hibushareholders@gmail.com to begin the process of registration, follow the instructions and all will be revealed!

Been reported already on iii but let me first to break it here - Barry Dearing has agreed to represent hibu shareholders and advise on going forward. He's the chap who led the successful campaign to improve the lot of Cattles shareholders, resulting in their being awarded 27p rather than 1p per share - wow!

Thanks again BP - I read your last post with interest too and both struck me as sincere. I take on board what you and others (including carvegybear) have said, but to claim - as MP did - that they are their own bank if they were truly insolvent, for instance, can surely only be considered misleading. But then I guess it boils down to the point at which misleading statements constitute mendacity. If we're flogging a dead horse then so be it - at least there are so many shares registered with the group now that further individual financial exposure (one would hope) will be limited. Enjoy the bank holiday weekend (assuming you're UK-based). Definitely signing off now for that.

The case against hibu would depend on the extent to which the directors were in cahoots with lenders, and of conflicts of interest. As outsiders we don't know either yet - that's why action is being pursued. Also, were we not encouraged to invest based on what turned out to be non-existing assets that weren't even launched (i.e. their digital offerings)? Isn't an underlying characteristic of a Ponzi scheme the invitation to invest in such non-entities? The phrase you refer to, by the way, was first uttered way too late for most investors and came seemingly out of the blue. Thanks for the good luck vote, though. We'll see. Signing off for a while now.

Oh, and one more thing - what about those whose pension fund(s) invested in hibu effectively autonomously? Does caveat emptor apply to them too?

Hi again lemmink - I'm really just a minnow in the scheme of things so hardly in a position to act as the group's spokesman or rep., and certainly I wouldn't divulge anything that could undermine its efforts, as I'm sure you can appreciate, but I'd be fine about reporting any major developments that have been cleared for public dissemination (ooh, get me now!). Best I can do really.

"It seems that so many people on here still have no concept of how companies are structured and how businesses work." So what?! I have a pretty well-grounded concept of deception and fraud, I think, and that's all that's relevant. "Caveat Emptor." I was about to dismiss this with a rude word Del Boy but instead I'll give you the chance to give examples of just what sort of director behaviour (this extends to statements) is NOT acceptable and which should and can result in punitive / compensatory measures being imposed. Just a couple - oh, and I mean in the context of conducting business, of course, so mass murder and rape, for instance, are out.

Thanks BlindPanic. Not much more to say now I guess other than how it's funny you never see Iain Duncan Smith and Karl Pilkington's old man in the same place at the same time.

Thanks for your concern, lemmink, but it was unwarranted after all. Basically, the next-door-neighbour was blasting Craig-hairy-face-worms-David on an old Amstrad stack and my old Delilahs decided they'd had enough and crawled off! I realised what had happened and enticed them back with some Steely Dan and caster sugar (nipples LOVE caster sugar). Have you registered with the hSG yet?

In a sense, the intrinsic value of the business is not really the issue. Grossly misleading statements by the BOD aside, the fact there are parties who've possibly made a packet convincing investors otherwise or whilst acting with enormous conflicts of interest is what needs investigating - were, as some have speculated, Goldman Sachs really shorting the nuts off Yell / hibu whilst acting as their advisers? That said, would they (Goldman Sachs) really have outbid all others in the debt auction - even at such a discount - if they genuinely thought the business was doomed?

I tried registering with the HSG today and clicked on the link as advised, then within a few minutes of so doing my nipples fell off! It might have just been a coincidence, but it's never happened before and I was wondering whether anyone else here has experienced the same thing (as - if so - it could point to sabotage). I don't wish to sound alarmist and am sure all is safe and secure (the team seem to have done a great job), but just thought I'd mention it. Anyway, good luck to the HSG and all holders (if that's what we still are)!

Just had a couple of hours shuteye. Sorry if my last post seems rather - erm - incoherent! The fact remains that much of what hibu pronounced / promulgated / preached over the past couple of years WAS misleading. Oh come on now - it was (only 2.3 billion in debt - so they cleared close to 2 billion in the space of a couple of years or so?!)! And please don't talk jobs when it comes to the likes of Goldman Sachs!

I agree that the facts NOW appear to have been simple. Don't you get it? Do whose OWN research? That's the point!

I'm surprised such a large discrepancy in the pay-off price between action group and non-action group members was allowed (not that I don't believe you). You say it's just a question of e-mailing proof of holding, ID and address but what about those holders who invested their houses and are now homeless?! Seriously, though, I think you've persuaded me (though my holding is / was really quite small).

Nice, encouraging post Lucando, but how were the minority empowered to act on behalf of all shareholders: "Many accepted, however, the minority who were part of the shareholder group refused and took action ending up with 27p per share."?

"Hibu have no credit, that's the deal. They defaulted and have a really bad credit rating." Can't argue with that! "The only way to pay off the debt is shareholders paying more" That 's less clear-cut because we don't know how their much-lauded major digital services would have fared, and it seems to me about as clear as an Enron balance sheet just how long they'd have had before defaulting was inevitable (but them I'm not an accountant). Anyway, I was just making the point that shareholders are / were the owners - a moot point now, perhaps, but it does differentiate them from gamblers in this respect. And I've really no idea what the HSG will achieve. I don't know the full extent of their resources (not just financial) for a start, but it seems to a bumpkin like me that they'd have a very strong case against the current BOD.

Archie - shareholders do / did own this company, and that's what differentiates holding stock from simply placing bets on the spin of a roulette wheel - ownership (there's one flashing irritatingly on the left of my screen as I type). Now shareholders may well be gambling on the future worth of this something, but it s nevertheless ownership (unlike spread betting, for instance, when nothing is owned - this IS truly gambling). "Since shareholders don't want to dig their hand in their pocket to fund the difference" Again, the lifeblood of commerce / business is credit - they shouldn't have to if the debt is being serviced (I know people have speculated that it would have only been a matter of time before hibu defaulted anyway but we don't know how long that would have been, and NO serious attempts were made to launch digital products to even try to boost revenue).

"Do you really think that when a board of directors says "little or no value" they mean you may get something back??" Do you really think that the BOD of a PUBLICLY LISTED company can do what they want with company assets? We weren't flogging the horse, MP, BW and co. were - THAT'S THE POINT! If it died a long time ago, how can they justify a publicly declared NAV of 12 p per share WAY AFTER the time of death when nothing significant other than VOLUNTARILY defaulting happened since? Come on - answers please!

Bah - humbug! Well anyway, Pocock's still a big fibber whose pants are on fire!

Oh yeah - I remebered BW's pladge but forgot about his hedge