Member Info for Spikeyj

ian_, lol, i am surprised you think i don’t take a ‘side’!

... am i not meant to be one of the ‘negative’ posters,
since i‘ve stated that i think there is a serious chance of
delisting (and if delisting does happen, that it’s likely to
be pretty bad news for ordinary shareholders), & I’ve said
that if trading does resume, i guess it’s likely share price
will be considerably lower than EUA price at suspension?
(my guess is 0.75p c/o/b). - sorry I’ve not been clearer ian_!

GFD, happy with my life as it is, thanks,
& not looking for any advice from you.

GFD, i have no idea who TDT is, nor do i know the real identities of any
other poster on these boards, nor am i tom winni, nor do i know him,
nor do i have any other IDS on lse, nor am i part of any ‘team’, etc, etc.

boy, you guys do love your conspiracy theories!

crabby, each to their own I suppose, but this
board has given me good chuckles for weeks.

surprised you need to ask, GFD. I’ve said pretty clearly before
that i am certainly not invested in EUA (neither long nor short).
i’ve also said before that for me posting & reading on these chat
boards is primarily about mild entertainment/interest, though
from time to time i do also find that it can be quite instructive.

am curious, is there any particular reason in your view why anyone
*should* post in “glowing terms” about AIM? - bit of a cess pit, no?

hi happyscot, there is a kind of safety net which could stop or slow
such a manoeuvre, which would be to write to companies house
objecting to a proposed dissolution. companies house can then
choose, if it wishes, to suspend the dissolution process for specified
period of time, in order to grant the objector more time to produce
evidence/legal arguments as to why it would be improper to allow the
dissolution to proceed (- typically, objections may come from creditors
protesting that the company is just trying to swerve debts). ... not sure
how often such objections do prevent dissolution, rather than just slow it?

(from my perspective, a bit hypothetical, as i don’t think EUA wants this.)

lucretius, 11:41: “at 11:36 today gfd wrote “Doesn’t need shareholder approval to seek a listing Spikeyj so why should a delisting? Point me towards any rule or regulation that says it is necessary, please.” Absolutely right. AIM decide, not the shareholders.”

refreshing to see that after lucretius & GFD had some time to reflect,
they realised that shareholders *do* get a vote about whether or not
to agree with an attempt by an AIM board to voluntarily delist from AIM.

... hence that 75% shareholder vote requirement I’d mentioned.

as previously posted, there are of course ways for an unscrupulous BoD
to get around that if they really want, such as ‘losing’ their nomad, oops,
then ‘failing’ to replace them bringing about automatic delisting, with no
shareholder vote. i don’t think that’s the case here; that kind of strategy
could make sense with a company that owns very valuable assets not
fully reflected in the share price, where there could be a temptation for
certain kinds of directors to try to sneak such valuable assets away from
shareholder control. but that kind of strategy would not make sense
with a company whose assets were not particularly good, but which was
being quite successful in bigging up its ‘potential’ to keep the share price
inflated. with that latter kind of company, it would make much more
sense to fight tooth & nail to stay listed, to keep exploiting that sentiment
in a pumped up share price. i don’t think EUA BoD want to delist, because
EUA is more like the second kind of company, rather than the first, imv.

tonwin, they don’t necessarily have to pay anything at all;
if theydelist from AIM, and then ‘failed’ to file confirmatory
statements or accounts on time, they would get get dissolved
as a company, which would then mean that they woudn’t even
have to publish an audit. different matter if they were determined
to carry on as a private company, but sometimes if directors really
are trying to get their hands on assets quietly, they prefer the
dissolution route since by not publishing accounts or audit it gets
very hard for the poor shareholders to see where the assets went.

GFD, i didn’t make any claim whatsoever that such comments on
another BB were “authoritative”, did i? - simply that it is where the idea
was being discussed. i have been clear that i do not share that opinion.

...just out of interest, how many shareholders would be
needed to force an AIM company to convene a meeting
where any such proposals could be put to a shareholder vote?

; )

GFD, gosh, i am sad to hear that AIM
shareholders are so powerless. poor things.

GFD, 11:30, some folks were chatting about that idea over on advfn.

seadog, no problem, good luck, to you and all honest folks.

of course, there are always ways round such things. (‘losing’ one’s
nomad could be one such device, for the conspiratorially minded? ). but
i agree, that’s drifting into something probably excessively speculative.

goodflyingduck, do you believe that an AIM company BoD can
just opt to leave its AIM listing without its shareholders getting
to have a vote on such a proposal? - AIM’s bad enough as it is!

hi RMR, yes, i suppose EUA could indeed have chosen to
phrase their RNS like that. but it seems they do prefer to
couch their RNSs in much more upbeat terms, don’t they?

just sticking carefully to what they have said, “advanced negotiations”
does not in any promise or commit that the eventual outcome of any
negotiations will be successful, so there’s nothing that the BoD could
be challenged on if nothing gets agreed. no lie told. and similarly, the
completion, or near completion, of due diligence, does not in any way
promise /guarantee that having done their DD, a nomad will be satisfied
with what they have discovered, and the company’s response. so again,
nothing the BoD could be challenged on if nothing gets agreed. no lie told.

no problem, beast.

alternative speculation by others is that they could be using the lack of a
nomad to force through delisting without needing a 75% shareholder vote,
so that once delisted and no longer subject to AIM regulation and nomad
overview the company can set about quietly transferring assets beyond reach
of the shareholders. but that’s not my opinion. (perhaps I am too trusting?)

... and in terms of what would be ‘preventing’ them from agreeing to pay
that price, i don’t think anything is preventing them, i think they are just
not sure they want to pay that price. previous situation suited them well.

(hence, i think BoD does have some control, as they *could* choose to comply.)

... hope that makes my view clearer to you, beast, sorry if you are still unsure.

beast, sorry i didn’t phrase it clearly enough for you.

i think the ‘price’ being asked of EUA to be allowed to stay on
AIM ( - i.e. to get a new nomad & avoid delisting) is to provide
proper clarification re CITIC relationship, & for someone to quit.

hi RMR. i speculate that they are being asked to provide a very
clear and explicit statement about what the nature and extent of
their supposed relationship with CITIC really is, and has been, and
alongside that i suspect they are under pressure to agree who will
take the fall (via a BoD resignation) for the difficulties that brought
about the suspension. personally, i don’t believe that the suspension
was caused by a single tweet. rather, the broader history of social
media use across different platforms may have been problematic. jmo.

(but it is of course possible, might be other issues relating to this small
speculative AIM miner operating in russia which are entirely opaque to pis
- who are usually be the last to know. unknown unknowns, as it were.)