Member Info for stokey12

Findingtheta ref 11.09 post that is possible but bendog was stating it as a fact so he must have some basis for saying that. Unless going by his posting history he is just ramping.

Bendog ref 10.47 post where are you getting that from?

Computer909 ref 10.33 gom back to the RNS and scroll down to see what rights attach to 2023 Deferred Shares. The 2023 Deferred Shares have no voting rights attached to them. Effectively unless I am missing something 90% of the shares you are left with will have no voting rights attached to them.

Computer909 ref 09.17 I think you may have not read the RNS as carefully as you may possibly have. Under the details of who you should contact tere is an extract from the circular. The important part is as follows.

'(1) Ordinary Share Subdivision

The current nominal value of each of the existing Ordinary Shares is ?0.001. Pursuant to the proposed subdivision, each existing Ordinary Share would be subdivided into 10 Ordinary Shares of ?0.0001, from the time at which the Resolution in respect of the subdivision becomes effective (which will be immediately prior to the Ordinary Share Consolidation and Redesignation).

(2) Ordinary Share Consolidation

Immediately after the subdivision of the Ordinary Shares every 1,000 (one thousand) subdivided Ordinary Shares of ?0.0001 each will be consolidated into 10 (ten) Ordinary Shares of ?0.01 each

(3) Redesignation

Immediately after the Ordinary Share Consolidation 9 (nine) out of every 10 Ordinary Shares of ?0.01 each will be redesignated into 9 (nine) deferred C ordinary shares of ?0.01 each ("2023 Deferred Shares").

It is the part under redesignation that I was referring to. The 2023 Deferred Shares are not worth the paper they are written on. In my view shareholders would be better off witha full takeover by the lenders.

Lottie123 ref 09.06 post Thanks for that.

Hebridean9 ref 09.07 post as the Steamship company is as far as I can tell a private company they cannot be sold on any recognised exchange so the only ways they can actually sell them at any kind of profit is either selling them back to the company or the company being sold. I do not think this is a final offer so we might see an increased offer.

Trytrytryagain ref 08.43 post have you read the RNS. If so is there any other interpretation of the capital reorganisation. They could have done a straight 100 for 1 consolidation instead they gone for this one. I will wait for you to show how shareholders will have more than 1% of their shares entitling them to a vote.

HarChris ref 08.37 post If you scroll down you will see a post from me which includes a link to the complete list of all shareholders in the steamship company. There are around 800 people on that list including people who have sold their shares since the company was formed. There are therefore a number of long term shareholders on that list. There does not appear to have been any changes since 2021.

We do not know how long they have owned their shares, how much they paid for the shares or how much they have received in dividends if anything. So it is quite possible that if they bought the shares for under £2 they would accept an offer of £9. If you look at the list and the number of shares some people have I would not be surprised if some would take an offer of £9 especially if they are in debt.

Halfpenny ref 08.45 post You are aware that CalMac is a wholly owned subsidiary of the scottish government so why would they work with a private company to take on a company they own.

Halfpenny ref 08.32 post that would mean taking on the Scottish Government which definitely would not be in HARL's best interest.

Wyndrum ref 08.04 post While what you say makes sense it seems to forecloses the possibility that we are talking about two different funding pots which are independent. I say that because I do not see how the takeover comes within any of the UKEF scheme. It is not as if after the takeover IOSSC will be doing any exporting or the takeover will assist in HARL doing. It is more likely that we have two different funding streams that are independent of each other.

I have not seen anything saying that the finance deal has been agreed. What is your source and do not say TheDogFarther as I have not found his predictions reliable.

Si_Derman ref 07.50 post can you provide a link preferably not on Facebook.

I am strongly advising against voting in Favour of any of the resolutions. If I understand the capital reorganisation ordinary shareholders will have the voting entitlement of shares reduced to 1% of the shares that they hold.

On reading the RNS i noted this 'However, it has not been practicable for Harland & Wolff to make enquiries of all persons acting in concert with it prior to the date of this announcement in order to confirm whether any details are required to be disclosed under Rule 2.4(c)(iii) of the Code. To the extent that any such details are identified following such enquiries, Harland & Wolff shall make an announcement disclosing such details as soon as practicable, and in any event by no later than the time it is required to make its Opening Position Disclosure under Rule 8.1 of the Code.'

This seems to imply that HARL is making the offer with others unless refers to professional advisers.

BurrenBoy ref 19.07 post True until they revolt. If the PIs all send comment like I did and instruct their brokers to say know it will make the Board sit up and listen. I am not sure what percentage of shares are held by PIs but if enough take a stand it may force the board's hands.

Mamissimo If you think the Scottish Government is going to do anything other than a direct award to Calmac then you are seriously mistaken in my opinion. The latest contract with Calmac expires in September of next year. The Scottish Government has said they will decide next summer whether to make a direct award to CalMac. If they make a decision next summer then you would not be able to do a procurement exercise in time for a contract starting in September. Your rationale therefore does not work. The other issue is historical. As I said in a previous post when I did my degree in the early 90s CalMac was operating then and had been for sometime. In fact CalMac is authority for implied terms in a contract or at any rate one of them. So CalMac has always run the ferries in Scotland so I do not see it changing anytime soon.

On checking filings at Companies House I came across this documment https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/YAIe3tVd69tqlJN2FzQ4go0FOzr-rCx5NCPhqRCBSMQ/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3E6OWU3XT%2F20231124%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20231124T034525Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPb%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJGMEQCIA6W9FtlTw1yogT6GgpMdXgxUiRRkLVamMGpC1H894urAiAIMPq1XELa8lNiZ%2Fqy7YZBWLY%2F0T0d8IE9KH2JKglGRyq7BQhPEAQaDDQ0OTIyOTAzMjgyMiIMaqSk%2FzC2Rg75IsZTKpgFxUwjrhBv205r15G4LMvSnpQwCZ6AcGdF3D6upaEQ7d28YW0XCywJtQWh1uW0yHrZ9Jf4oc4u%2FxH9%2BV3HgZb6h5szN%2FrHkqfh6d1Fp%2F%2B9iVmZJh%2FMkZB5dTYFD%2FfIPf%2FP8DyR2AFjSAfImGwhgQYhQP4zSHO3j6CWCOSLHEOmvY%2FjXJNSNQlihNr4Z1RvXD9VgLcHMsmy6MOA64tDovhajqi8e0Kdnc0D07A5vsfr91A2t0768FqqizTadiP2v265qHIvVTa9C6AffIUJdIXSFiJG%2FTTDJ8%2FYZvB41ffmvjpTlcpR9i%2F4AVgyTcu0ed%2Bl7pKh5PproD%2BivaIGPOrPysIcRfX9pFjWPwSGPmsVax8dpWm0o5vZnDr%2FUuIZq1y9uPBUil4AAN4v4EC2L8xuOiQzoiGKg2sbKF1xtsWSSkWW8q4EeGtSFGEjyyQ%2FyozWPxvIqS3PxvL9lC0p61Vlsyrpdk9QQ%2B4ZYESKL4ZnSLaojM9L0Gw6NRKwchDBvEMMghxqzOmX7Q5XBDIfZlSmg%2B%2F5fl%2BNVd%2F8gmIjb4GQEIBXRYvntfDdOlY7c33ywZ%2FJ3CQYXK3H3WUoE9vdUaTOeiBIpnuwJsGj3mLfANlD3nYE7RIDo%2BNGclGWUXyFZpFmwwlMq7dtW1UY%2BhfgChXy3Dz3RGw17eue4t%2Bs1Db%2FbWYpqlEOz9i91qNbqcKSnGwHVhfbuoJ2Py9wW%2B2JXpDSZo9qlFDSGhjfk5ZvjN3nr8F5F43SkboIn%2FtJyM1UhEyGFpGRcM3nSnpd%2FjbeGGBDv7N%2BpVxYgHLNOApDGFrZHFjTYKn5bwOF5HFNtD0NJrvgydtocBw5J4a5NCsSUuQEk%2FP%2Fc9%2FSl5U3X%2FiowIVY16VTcyz69QxxfzDWlv%2BqBjqyAdKtpbh87SYzqvc5v8sJO%2BZ0sL6tSvLUaGI39IWPQvFVe2RFDjW7LSP08u3yXSocV6sWMzghaYAFsdBii2MDVZQ6vRhWJ6SmlQPxjZJE6ZlJn4u5UioQqfpVssQ21F%2B3iU3hO8X%2FtrVzZsbnN%2Bzrc3GYi%2FWLH8crAE0P9Ho68kdPFQ8f2mssrKLLFoZ5xxVKD9Ymr9bBeaW09pQZQhF1Alkn8lW%2FpiZSagxys5r5A8qSolE%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%2200165746_cs01_2021-12-14.pdf%22&X-Amz-Signature=1e92478447b044b5e885a6b9cb40645fa724bf5e143d55379931890cd542cf85

from this you can see that the steamship has 881 shareholders with a varying number of shares.

Also there is this from CornwallLive in August https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/isles-scilly-steamship-company-profiting-8692315.

Very strange that there has been no RNS from HARL about this. The filing history for Isles of Scilly Steamship Company can be found on this link https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00165746/filing-history

The following is the text I have submitted to EQT from the website.

'In relation to the RNS of 20th November 2023 it states inter alia 'The proposed restructuring includes refinance or repayment of existing debt facilities with various lenders, supported by wholesale review and reduction of the Company's operational expenditure. Supported by existing lenders, the Company will redeem existing debt facilities with Altair Group Investment Limited ("Altair"), refinance outstanding debt with YA II PN Ltd and Riverfort Global Opportunities PCC Limited (the "YA-RF Lenders") and settle an amount due to Pitcole Limited ("Pitcole"), a shareholder in EQTEC Italia MDC Srl ("Italia MDC") (the YA-RF Lenders, Pitcole and Altair together being the "Refinance Investors").'

I note that these companies own circa 35% of the shares in Eqtec. Under the provisions of the facilities mentioned these shareholders will increase their holdings based on the current share price to around 50%. As a private shareholder this gives rise in my mind to concerns about how the interests of minority shareholders will be protected. I am therefore currently minded to oppose any resolution that is put to a general meeting for the purpose of implementing the restructuring.'

If anyone agrees with my view can I ask that you send a similar message and circulate the message to any shareholders you know so they can also comment.

Hebridean9 ref17.37 post do you have a lin to your source for this.