Member Info for Punter21

Where did 10% come from? The RNS states 4.89%

Only one we have cleared the insider cancer and there has been wholesale clearance of the issue once and for all.

No, they must do what is in accordance with the law. They have no arbitration here. Whether they knew about a placing only compounds the issue. The fact is they were selling without board approval and with MB certainly in possession of inside information regarding the company for some months.

Absolutely. And it is 39 trades. The law has been broken. Value destroyed. He must go, with no options or salary pay off, and his replacement announced. No more flim flam and delay.

No duster you are wrong. Directors and their families are bound by insider dealing regulation and this has been a clear breach of that law.

And still nothing on the man and his wife who have destroyed value in this business by their illegal sales.

My pleasure.

No. Scratch, That is not what it means. It only means that they received more buy orders from potential subscribers, both old and new, than shares available.

Costs money and therefore pointless unless part of a larger transaction.

You clearly have no idea on the subject. I suggest that you keep your mouth shut and not confirm your ignorance.

Well said Stay Long. The board seem to be taking far too long on what is an open and shut case of insider dealing . Any attempted fudge by the directors will be met with shareholder fury and complaints to the FCA.

Hopefully we shall see the back of Boughtwood tomorrow and we can move on.

Nothing new here. Just strengthens the case for sodium ion.

@swazers. Boy oh boy what a sad world you must live in to think everyone is out to either get you or talk about you. There is a word for that. Paranoia. I think you will find that most people really don’t listen to a word you say. Least of all act on your bearish twaddle.

If your other question is what if they are selling to buy back at a lower price, see my earlier reply to you. ANY ACTIVITY, whether buying or selling, is caught by the legislation.

@whoknowswhy must have been a good night as you clearly cannot string a couple of words together and make a coherent sentence. What on earth are you asking / trying to say? If your question is who is saying Mr & Mrs Boughtwood' s selling activity is insider trading, the answer is that the law is absolutely clear on this and they have broken it. It was unauthorised trading, 39 times, and particularly during periods of high corporate activity, when the directors were in possession of price sensitive information. 39 times is not accidental; it is premeditated fraudulent activity, punishable in law.

@mister green. that is a cut and paste from replies sent to anyone who write to them. **** covering email written by lawyers for them to transmit.

@swazers What a load of old tosh. Go peddle your snake oil elsewhere. You are not amongst friends here.

Mister Green I too think that the company could benefit somehow from his input in the future. However the law is the law and justice must be seen to be done. They have telephones in Ford Open I understand.

Mr Green there is only one resolution. Boughtwood goes. Anything less will be a travesty of the law.