Member Info for timbo237

Zag - it would be a bit bizarre even for Lunn to state in one set of accounts that Rapp received over $70k in 2 years and then to say he received nothing!?

ASI - as usual you are wrong. When shareholders calling for an EGM it has to be done through the directors. Despite all the necessary criteria having been met Lunn has refused to put this request in to effect hence the court case. I give below an extract from Companies Act 2006. The key point is " the directors are required to call a general meeting"

(2)The directors are required to call a general meeting once the company has received requests to do so from—

(a)members representing at least the required percentage of such of the paid-up capital of the company as carries the right of voting at general meetings of the company (excluding any paid-up capital held as treasury shares); or

(b)in the case of a company not having a share capital, members who represent at least the required percentage of the total voting rights of all the members having a right to vote at general meetings.

(3)The required percentage is 10% unless, in the case of a private company, more than twelve months has elapsed since the end of the last general meeting—

(a)called in pursuance of a requirement under this section, or

(b)in relation to which any members of the company had (by virtue of an enactment, the company’s articles or otherwise) rights with respect to the circulation of a resolution no less extensive than they would have had if the meeting had been so called at their request,

in which case the required percentage is 5%.

ASI - they have done it and Lunn refuses to hold one. That's what the court case is all about. Lunn knows he'll be defeated that’s why he's asked the TG to withdraw the case.

Hepran - "Lunn has just released an RNS detailing the next proceedings, what isn’t he adhering to?"

How about Company law for starters?

No problem. Liar

Hepran - if as you suggest the court case date is "imaginary" then why has Lunn asked for the case not to proceed?

He's running scared and your moronic posts will change nobody's mind. Halfwit.

Court case

Don't bother as not responding to any more AI cr*p

stephen lunn has been 75% shareholder in petroquest for some time so ai is talking *******s.

So if you're interested in what happens to shareholders funds how about being diluted to hell with Lunn personally owning 70% of the business. That sounds like a great deal. Ask AI what it thinks about that.

You're a joke. There are so many inaccuracies in your AI statements it's unreal. It's like taking an exam giving all the wrong answers then finding out the correct answers and substituting them in and saying you were correct all along.

AI seems to be about as dumb as you.

ASI - as usual you are talking rubbish. You state there is no public evidence that Stephen Lunn holds any equity in Petroquest. This extract from New Zealand Companies House proves otherwise.

https://app.companiesoffice.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1847387/shareholdings?backurl=H4sIAAAAAAAAAC2LQQqEQAwEfzNXXxCWPXnxIOx%2BIEyaVdDMmGQEf7%2BDeOsqqofKP%2FiQy15Z174cbHl57UVAHqzCJimuCoLGGj1JB80IK0eDR2I5WTNkZsVGYQ3pDq9v%2Fzi9p%2BnhT3A0H620eus%2FynhI7XoAAAA%3D

Oh dear! His mythical 300,000 shares are going to be worth nothing.

You missed it

I never said anything of the kind. Is it your usual habit to just make stuff up?

ASI - get real. You won't get any of that from Lunn.

Make that 6 trades - all buys

Zag - there's your answer in T Shillington's post of 15:34. Wasn't sure if TG wanted it publishing.

Oh yeah. Like he said in June that reconvening the AGM was "imminent "