Member Info for Spikeyj

seadogsteve, sensible to think ahead about different scenarios, and
your options and priorities. and perfectly reasonable to read what
various other posters here think about options and strategies. no harm
having food for thought. but as pompeyrod has already reminded this
morning, DYOR matters. important to remember that if some poster on
an AIM chatboard tells you what their strategy is, and whether they are
buying/selling etc, it’s quite common that they will be telling you what
they want you to believe they are doing, rather than what they are actually
doing. ... so someone with plenty of shares to sell may well tell the board
that they will be holding and adding even more shares if XYZ happens, while
someone who wants to buy shares may well say the exact opposite. so read
all posts, but take all with a *huge* pinch of salt. other posters don’t know
you and your personal circumstances, and most will usually be posting for
their own interest/benefit, not to help you, no matter how experienced or
friendly they seem. EUA’s sudden suspension means that a lot of short-term
trader types got stuck with positions here for much longer than they would
usually hold, so many of them will be itching for ways to get liquidity back.

hi aubrey. i think the BoD here do intend to try to get a new nomad,
& actually i suspect they *do* have a lot of control over the outcome;
my own guess, they are trying to haggle about what is being asked of
them as the ‘price’ being demanded by AIM & nomad to stay on AIM.

as posted previously, guess 66% they balk at the requirements & so get
delisted ( - which still would not make them a private company - ), and
33% EUA swallow what’s being asked of them, & resume trading quickly.

$827.7 million in BP.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravsharma/2020/05/20/how-to-interpret-saudi-wealth-funds-2-billion-splurge-on-big-oil-stocks/

AZN, gotta love it.

“... it was because of a tweet...”

that’s an assumption, not a fact.
(& i think an incorrect assumption.)

c u later folks.

glad you get a smile, dvharrison.

... you were in WRN, weren’t you? i’m a bit surprised you didn’t
learn a bit more about chat board ‘enthusiasts’ from that share. as
you might recall, plenty of enthusiasts there claimed i was wrong.

one main point from CTAG is to be very wary of just how easy it is
for a company, or others with vested interests, to pack a forum, or
an action group, with moles whose job it is to turn an action group
into an inaction group. tactics would include variants of (a)reassuring
that it will all come good, (b) advising caution against annoying or
distracting the BoD by taking any ‘hasty’ steps, (c) saying there’s nothing
anyone can do anyway but wait, & (d) saying it’s too late to do anything

kopfkissen, try google?

(similarly, shills there argued against engaging any lawyers to challenge
CTAG board, and against seeking any forms on injunctions against transfer
of assets etc. by the time that action group woke up, it was way too late.)

LL, better to discuss on CTAG board than here if you wanted to get details.
but for example, shills persuaded holders that they didn’t need to turn up
to vote at a meeting which company had rather ‘inconveniently’ arranged
in the Isle of Man, saying that holders didn’t need to worry about the BoD
forcing through unfavourable changes because the holders would get to
vote against steps like allowing BoD to issue loads more shares for pittance
to their associates or themselves, or allowing company to leave UK & register
offshore (caymans to begin with) instead. but when the meeting was held,
the chair of the meeting then called votes on proposals simply on a show of
hands from the people physically present in the room, which meant of course
that the BoD were able to pass all measures they want, and through major
dilution able to stymie all other shareholders from exercising any subsequent
control over the company. the shills kept telling the action group that there
was no need to attend the meeting or object to the motions, as they would
never get passed. plenty else problematic, but not for the EUA chatboard.

there seem to have been quite a few shills operating on this board trying
to reassure people that it’s all going to be fine, so nobody needs to take
any action. it reminds of the way the ctag shareholder action group was
sabotaged from the outset by shills within it advising against effective
steps. they bought enough time to protect company from any remedies.

cui bono?

you’re being a bit over-sensitive ian.

nickyquinn, what would be the grounds for such injunctive relief?

people can do whatever they like with their own money. if they
want to pour their cash into legal money-pits, that’s fine by me.

i‘m just wondering why people think there might be
any legal case at all to answer in the first place?
there has been no news giving any such indication.

“... would want/risk litigation...”

there have been a few posts on lse recently, including Ian’s 06:46,
which raise the notion of possible litigation against the company if
things don’t go well for the shareholders here (- tho’ i do appreciate
ian is clear that he remains very positive about EUA & its prospects)..
others have posted things about ‘class actions’, for example. but so
far as I am aware, there has been no evidence whatsoever in the public
domain to indicate any kind illegality at all on the company’s part. it is
not illegal for a BoD to allow their company to get delisted from AIM, it
is not illegal for a company to fail, and it is not illegal for a BoD to lose
shareholders all their money. unfortunately, those kind of things happen
fairly often in the stockmarkets. sad or unlucky, maybe, illegal, nope.

so I’m wondering, when posters here bring up the idea of litigation,
what on earth do people think that the litigation would be about? ...
can’t just say to court, ‘i lost my money, make them give it back to me’.

same guy who posted on here as RNSman,
when enthusiasts here were keen on him.

gosh, the little fellah was getting very emotional over on advfn!
(or perhaps more accurately, tired & emotional, as PI would say.)

fortunately very few over last 35 years. none positive.

delisting is not inevitably a disaster for shareholders.
but it does tends to be so in the great majority of cases.

matt, one of the snags of becoming a delisted company tends to
be that news flow dries up, so it becomes increasingly difficult for
shareholders to know what is going on at a company. so if EUA
does delist, probably unlikely imv that “they should reveal all...”

one of the main reasons they are at risk of delisting is
because they might prefer to delist than have to reveal?

EthioEthio 17:59. 18/5/20: “I promise you i won’t post anymore here.”