Member Info for shareho1der

Those who sold expected to buy back at 4p must now be feeling sheepish.

I am guessing funding has been sorted with the Banks for the explorations and production

Are you happy now?

It is time this gets back to a fair value

You bought into a company without doing research and you are now asking us for information. Very funny. ..... some people never stop amazing me.

Yes you are right. Also don't forget the small matter of €453m shareholders capital that was unlawfully confiscated/stolen by the Irish Government because it wasn't in included in the recapitalisation. Secondly, going back to the questions referred to the CJEU. The CJEU Judgement is inconclusive if you think about it. It's a matter of waiting for what the Irish High Court comes up with. All in my opinion.

I wonder no one is writing here. I have spoken to a Lawyer of mine and asked him to go over the CJEU documents. He found that in contrary to what the Irish newspaper are writing, the judgments are in the shareholders favour. In its conclusion, it is noted that the CJEU did NOT actually endorsed the Irish Government actions on issuing shares below the nominal value and not offered pre-emption rights without the approval of general meeting. CJEU only supported the government action on increasing the shares without approval. And it is up to the Irish High Court to make the decision, when the case goes back to them, if the Shareholders minimum rights have been respected. Anyone has different view on this?

The CJEU has answered the first question referred to it and we now know that the financial stability of EU is more important than Shareholders' rights . BUT the second question has NOT been answered and this will be referred back to the Irish High Court, who will investigate and decide if the ways the Bank recapitalisation were done breached the minimum rights of the Shareholders. No wonder the Irish Government is not yet claiming victory.

Hi All, I have just recovered from the shock of disappointment from reading the judgments of CJEU on the case. However, I have gone back to reading the opinion of the advocate general Wahl. In sections 80-89, Particularly, in the wording of Section 84. it seems the issue of the direction Order compatibility with European Law will be decided by the Irish High Court when the case goes back to them. Sections 91 and 92 give substance to this argument in shareholders favour. Especially when the Irish High Court makes decision on the proportionality of the direction order i.e. issuing shares below its nominal value. The Irish High Court will also be required to investigate the shareholders missing €453m which was not included in the recapitalising the Bank. This was explained in Sections 93-96. It is unlikely that CJEU rulings will be the end of this case.

There is a report in the Irish Times this morning that we lost the case. .... I am gutted.

It is not long to go now before CJEU delivers its judgements on our case. I am guessing next month. The Irish government must be shaking in its boots. After the Apple tax fiasco, our case will be another blow to them.

The conclusion is saying that a Government IS entitled to take over a company WITHOUT the shareholders permission. BUT the government actions must be "least" damaging to the shareholders. What is the damages threshold is now being subjected to further investigations. If the shareholders can prove that the government acted unlawfully by lowering nominal value, not allowing shareholders to sell their shares before the take over and the loss of Capital, then the Court will award compensation. Like I mentioned in my previous post, it is like Police legally enforcing entry into your house, they must not cause damages to your properties or belongings. That is why 2 questions were referred to CJEU by the Irish High Court.

Good News

This may sound confusing: By Law, The Irish Government does NOT need shareholders permission to intervene in a company that threatened its economy BUT its action in intervention must not breach shareholders rights like pre-emptions, nominal values, capital increases etc. The question many are asking is how/why can the government then breach shareholders rights if they are allowed to act without shareholders permission. That is for CJEU to decide and that is why they are paid fortune to entangled legal puzzles. It is like a Police having the power to force entry into your house on suspicion of crime. But you are entitled to compensation if you can prove that the Police caused damages or loss of your items or properties. If you bought shares in IPM before 27 July 2011, you could be entitled to generous compensation depending on the number of shares you bought.

No one can be be so sure anyone is selling in the absence of RNS saying so. Stocks sometimes go up or down without any buying or selling . I have seen it so many times. ... it is called a sentiment. The last RNS says Darwin converted into shares and will convert more. I don't know from where you guys are getting the information that Darwin is selling. Doesn't make sense that Darwin will be converting if he does not think the shares are worth holding. I remember a stock named HTT in a similar situation 3 yrs ago. It came out of a suspension, change its name to CHA, consolidated 1:10 and started trading in a different sector (Technology). The stock went up 50% on readmission before going down 50% from the price at suspension. The Stock then multi-bag ×35 a year later on the news of directors exercise of warrants and loan conversion . BUT the stock has fallen back and is currently trading at double the price of when it was suspended. I am NOT saying same will happen here . Do your own research.

The opinion of the advocate general of the CJEU was out on 22 June. AG Wahl raised some matter of interest regarding our case. In his opinion, Mr Wahl said it is legal for the Irish Government to intervened in recapitalising PTSB in 2011 without the permission of the shareholders. BUT the manner the Irish Finance Minister, Mr Noonan went about it that need to be thoroughly investigated. The opinion of the advocate generals are often accepted and reflected in CJEU rulings. If you bought shares here before 27 July 2011, you could be entitled to generous compensation depending on the number of shares you bought. GLA !!!

You are very funny

Note that your chief ramper here, riddler is quiet on the issue .

You will find it is this proposal that will dent the investors confidence here .....you have been warned.

Bad News: Bank of England to cap house price increase at 5% to avoid housing bubble .