Member Info for usernames

Reported at 15.30

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-news-latest-russia-war-putin-nuclear-live-mariupol-12541713

"Russian brigade commander killed by own troops, Western officials claim
A Russian brigade commander in Ukraine has been killed by his own troops, Western officials have claimed.

Colonel Medvechek, who was commanding the 37th Motor Rifle Brigade, is believed to have been deliberately run over.

PA has reported an official, who has not been named, as saying: "The brigade commander was killed by his own troops and killed by his own troops, we believe, as a consequence of the scale of losses that have been taken by his brigade."

"We believe that he was killed by his own troops deliberately. We believe that he was run over by his own troops."

The official added that a lieutenant general commanding the 49th Combined Arms Army has also died in the fighting, making him the seventh Russian general to be killed in combat since the invasion began."

Things are going very wrong for Russia in Ukraine now. I'd say it's only a matter of time before a climb down by VP or he faces being overthrown IMO.

Bump.

You'd trust that there are force majeure provisions in place.

The default is beyond the Company's reasonable control.

Kong1 - you are talking out of your arse about me. Don't try to shift the subject.

Anyway, what are you even doing on here if you're not invested? Isn't there an A&E department near where you live? Maybe you could spend the day there lecturing patients on how they could have avoided getting injured. Oh, hang on! That could result in somebody kicking the ever loving **** out of you, so don't do that.

Kong1 - no. If you're talking out of you rectum about other members, I think you should explain why you're doing it.

Kong1 - I'm not asking about your data sources for the major shareholders. I want to know why you made the following, and might I add completely baseless, accusations against me. Where did you get all this from...?

"But obviously you don’t want to believe any negative thing that surrounds Evraz.
Greed and lack of understanding or doing your homework has resulted in your situation which you can’t except.
As the war progressed you refused along with the vast majority on here to believe any could touch Evraz by law!"

I think they key word in the FCA statement was "investors". They are protecting people who were considering investing by making the shares unavailable.

If they meant that they were protecting shareholders they would have used the word "shareholders".

If you think about it further, suggesting that they were acting to protect shareholders suggests they were acting to protect RA and the other oligarchs. That was not their intention IMHO.

Eh? Where did all that come from Kong1?

Kong1 - you should probably reconcile your figures against what is posted on the website.

https://www.evraz.com/en/investors/shareholders/shareholder-structure/

The top 3 holders represented less than 58%. How do you know they are registered offshore btw?

Also, I don't think the company has been sanctioned, it's just suspended from the LSE.

I'd agree with the main thrust of you post however. Just because a Lada is registered with the DVLA don't mean you're looking at a British cae :/

The RNS about ownership and control came out at 15.57 on 10 March. The resignations RNS came out at 07.21 the following day. Basically, the resignations were submitted on 10 March and the market was informed prior to opening the following day.

My guess is that there was a Board meeting in the afternoon of 10 March. The CEO said that this is the statement we're going with. The NEDs said there is no way we can stand by that. The CEO said, well that's the statement we're going with. The NEDs all said okay we quit then. The CEO then said, well that's still the statement we're going with and I accept your resignations. We shall update the market first thing tomorrow, after I've got my statement out of the way first. He then said thank you for your contributions, now get out.

All IMHO of course.

The article is dated 3 March and the directors did nothing about it for a week. Then, within 2 business hours of the RNS about RA going out they suddenly all remembered what the IoD said and stepped down at once immediately.

Okay, let's go with that then.

jotom750 - there is nothing to suggest that the NEDs resignations were made in order to appease the FCA, or that such resignations would in any event appease the FCA. It's desperate speculation in the face of the alternative explanation.

No new NEDs have been appointed. I've no idea why you would think that new NEDs are going to be appointed in the current climate. Who would want the job, if it was there to be had...? Nobody decent I suspect.

There are two directors in place and that is not ideal from a governance perspective. We cannot look at this through rose tinted glasses IMO.

Hi IsleworthSpy,

Either the OFSI are being disingenuous or the Company is. I don't recall a wave of leadership resignations at the OFSI following their publication. I guess we will all have our own views on who is likely to have been disingenuous.

My understanding is that to convene a general meeting you need shareholders representing at least 5% of the total voting rights. So, RA and other shareholders over 5% can already put forward resolutions. To pass the resolutions, 50% or 75% of the votes cast have to support the resolution.

It was 10 NEDs that resigned (100%) all at once. Most of those wouldn't have been put forward by RA but IMO that only flies in the face of the argument that the resignations were made to appease the FCA.

Has anyone been following this story?

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/shares/uk-investors-left-stranded-as-raven-property-plans-to-de-list-shares

What I've said above is one possible explanation for why RA is treating his Evraz shareholding differently. There may be other reasons. Please don't lose any sleep over it.

Yes, Evraz has stated the RA has no control over the company. Russia said it was not planning to invade Ukraine. Do you really trust what a Russian CEO wants the UK government to believe right now? Would you bet your life on it...?

All the NEDS walked out within two working hours of RNS a stating that RA didn't have effective control. That tells you what the other directors thought of the announcement. They weren't prepared to stand by it because it simply isn't true IMHO. Their only option was to walk out after the RNS went out. I can't see the mass resignation as anything other than an objection to the RNS.

It's simple really. Majority sharehders can put forward a resolution for the company to vote on. I think you need 30% to do that, so RA and someone with more that 2% could put resolutions forward. The shareholders then HAVE to vote on it. No matter how mad the resolution may be.

To pass a resolution you need either 50% or 75% of votes cast, depending on what you're voting on. With concert parties RA can reach 50% easily and probably 75%, as not every shareholder will vote. It's very rare to have 100% of votes cast on time and that usually only happens where you have few voters on the register and drum up all votes.

As it stands, my best case scenario is that RA strips out the Russian assets and leaves the rest (cash, other overseas operations) with Evraz. Shares have value but RA would still hold 28% of what's left, potentially leaving us in limbo. The worst case scenario is that all assets are stripped out and the debts are left with Evraz. Shares become worthless. Neither is a good outcome.

I'm wondering if actually sanctioning the company would be of more help to us. That way at least assets would be frozen until this is sorted out However, I don't think there are sufficient grounds for sanctioning the company unfortunately.

How on earth this became a blue chip in the FTSE 100 with this kind of ownership structure is the big question. Surely this type of ownership structure (individual majority holders with effective control via concert parties) should have been scrutinised more closely. Or is it common in FTSE blue chips? I have no idea but I'd be surprised if this was the norm.

Apologies for the lack of clarity. I meant that RA didn't transfer his Evraz shares to a third party. His motives for treating the Evraz holding differently to Evington and Norma is of great concern.

It strikes me that RA isn't worried about the Evraz shares in the same way. There are very few explanations as to why that may be the case. But the fact that the bulk of Evraz assets are in Russia may offer an obvious explanation.