Member Info for ronwoking

Broom

The last that I heard from crystal amber is their recognition that some of their investments will remain into 2024 and that they will be discussing with their shareholders about the future structure of the fund later in 2023

However I still believe that the 3 years that it will take to get to the end of the DCU saga is not in Crystal Amber's play book and that they will have organised an early exit.

404

I strongly suspect that crystal amber have already agreed a take out of their DCU's with a third party. With their fund being wound down and their hope to complete this by the end of this year,a 3 year wait for the DCU's to pay off does not seem to me, to be consistent with those plans

Simples

Just tried to keep the numbers basic

XKR . As I calculate it,You have an investment of £1000. Then you receive a tax free dividend of £625.Then you receive a taxable dividend of £625.If you are a tax payer at 45% the net dividend to you is £343.75 making a total return on your investment of £968.75. Your investment, now after 3 years has no value andyou have made a loss of £31.25..

In terms of your return per share,you have a cost of 10p per share and have received a return over 3 years of 9.6875p.

Ofcourse if you are a taxpayer at a lower rate than 45%,the the maths are different.At a 40%tax rate your return is exactly £1000 (10p per share) and at a 20% tax rate your return is £1125 (11.25p per share)

Ofcourse the DCU return is also capped 12.5p per share and might be lower.

These figures illustrate why the tax status of the DCU's is so important

As I understand it the Centiva position is via a cash settled over the counter CFD,so no ownership of HUR shares is involved.It is purely a price play for them.It is often the case that the other party to the CFD will own HUR shares as their hedge to the CFD. Possibly the dutchmen hedging their position in HUR

but I am puzzled as to why the other side of the CFD has not been disclosed on a form 8.3

Flying

A single ISA manager may be representing 1000 different shareholders and IF they have given the ISA manager instructions as to how to vote then the ISA manager is holding 1000 proxies,yet is counted as only 1 proxy.

This is plainly unrepresentative of that class of shareholder

Nmbs

Yes I do think that this approach has mileage.In fact since ALL company scheme of arrangement votes are flawed by the fact that the law is now not fit for purpose in a digital world,the argument is made much stronger than if it were HUR alone that was impacted.

The judge has the opportunity to consider whether the voting arrangements fairly represent todays reality of shareholding.

It is possibly unlikely that the judge will refuse to sanction the scheme however I believe firmly in a maxim that has served me well for over 50 years in business....namely

"If you don't ask....you dont get"

The law as regards voting in schemes of arrangement is clearly not fit for purpose as it has not developed in recent years to take account of digital shareholding. That is well known and is the already the subject of debate.

Judges certainly do interpret the law in order to adapt it to current circumstances so as to ensure that it is consistent with the wishes of the lawmakers.That is how legal precedent develops and ofcourse keeps the appeal courts busy.

We do need to raise all the possible objections to the scheme to allow the judge to do his job.

Thank you again senseman for all your efforts on behalf of the private investors.

I think that it is now time to concentrate on the court sanctions process and to lodge our objections.

IMO these need to be based on the disenfranchisement of shareholders holding via nominees.

I suggest that in view of the bias inherent in the voting process in favour of the institutional shareholders vs the beneficial shareholders holding via nominees,the court should be asked to decline the sanction and to convene a fresh court meeting where the nominee shareholders should be required to disclose the number of beneficial shareholders that they are representing at the meeting and to disclose the number of votes both for and against the scheme where they have been given instructions by the beneficial shareholders.The nominee shareholders have that information.

In that way ALL shareholders wishing to vote both for or against the scheme will be fairly represented.

Mark99999
I had expected a robust response from kever but i see that you are cast in the same mould.

kever
This board is no place for ****** or even politically motivated commentary.
I have lived and worked in london for over 60 years, and in ALL that time there are parts of London that I would not have cared to visit, especially alone and at night.The same can be said of most major cities anywhere in the world.
If your mate feels obliged to wear a stab vest when visiting London on business....it make me wonder what exactly his "business" is.
Please do us all a favour and confine yourself to investment related comments concerning HUR and save the ****** agenda for more appropriate and receptive media.
Please confine yourself in future

ASI you are correct.I was overly strong in saying that dec31 2223 is a wind up date for crystal amber and therefore a deadline for its sale of hur.
But it is certainly a target agreed by resolution and is plainly a date that CA is supposed to be working towards.
Interestingly in the April12 RNS from CA the status of the DCUs is somewhat glossed over as the RNS concentrates on the more immediate dividends from HUR.The timing profile of the DCUs and is surely not consistent with a Dec31 2023 "target" so I remain persuaded that CA has an agreed disposal plan for its DCUs in its pocket

Machin
It ha been blindingly obvious that the current BOD has had no interest in developing hur since the aborted 2021 scheme.Their actions clearly indicate this.
My lasting doubt is to why Crystal Amber have signed up to a deal that is designed to deliver returns well beyond the date that they are mandated to wind up their fund.
That suggests to me that CA have already lined up a buyer for their CSUs and will meet their wind up deadline by selling the DSUs through the promised but yet to be delivered matched bargain system or my a pre arranged private contract.
If by some miracle this proposed take over fails,the BOD should be sacked immediately.

machin
I entirely agree with your view.
I have no reason to trust Prax and I do suspect that the DCU payments can creatively manipulated.
Also, I suspect that the supplementary dividend will be attached to the DCU's to be paid at a later date.
If it were a HUR dividend it would be tax free to ISA investors.As a DCU payment it is likely not tax free as the dcu would not be allowed within an ISA.
I hope that i am wrong on both counts.....we shall see.
This scheme is a terrible deal for us .Prax is paying us with our own money.....their cash contribution being minimal.
I have voted my 900,000 shares against the deal and will contribute to a message to the court panning the deal as discriminatory against the private shareholders.

Broomtree
Remember that in respect of the court meeting the number of shares held by the voter is irrelevent,as it is the number of voters that counts (in effect a head count)
There are relatively few institutional voters and relatively few Isa managers.
Members of the board that have bought shares in their own names and family names are packing the head count

For clarity,I have been called 3 times by Morrow and at no time did they attempt to influence my vote.
They were only seeking to establish that I had the full information on the HUR scheme.
There was absolutely no persuation attempted.
Other receivers of such calls may have had a different experience.

"the court must consider whether the class was fairly represented by the meeting, and whether the majority was coercing the minority in order to promote interests which are adverse to the class that they purported to represent"
- in the present situation "the class" would be us small private shareholders
In my view the private investors are clearly not being fairly represented or treated for 2 reasons
1) Should the votes of a nominee shareholder be classed as only 1 vote, the ALL the vores represented by the beneficial owners are effectivly disregarded
2) Should the scheme provide private investors with DSUs which are ineligible to be held in the same ISA as the HUR shares are held in, then those private investors are additionally discriminated against, as the investment status of their holdings has been material changed to their detriment.That HUR or their advisors or PRAX did not seek an HMRC clarification on the ISA status of DSUs clearly indicates that it was a deliberate act,by them to disadvantage the private shareholders in favour of the institutional shareholders.Or perhaps they did, and are concealing the HMRC reply.
I shall join with senseman in writing to the court to make these points.

Hi Sense
I have responded to the new email address that you provided

2 more phone calls today from Morrow.HUR must be getting very nervous re court meeting vote

Hi Sense
Tried to email the address that you gave but it was not recognised and bounced back.Happy to join a group to write to the court
regards