Member Info for usernames

But our government won't and you can see why they wouldn't want to. This doesn't give the Scots the right to start shelling towns in England or the right to call on the EU to come over and fight their battles for them.

The people of Crimea and the Dombas had the option of selling up and moving to Russia, if things were that bad for them in Ukraine. It's a BS excuse for a land grab by Russia IMHO.

And a 51/49 split would have settled it and that would have been the end of it?

If the Ukrainian government was that currup, and a 51/49 split would have settled it, I'm sure the Ukrainian government would have fixed the outcome. You know, like some of their neighbours fixed these "democratic" votes in the past.

But a marginal win would not have put Russia off and a win for Ukrain would not have been accepted.

Since the Brexit vote, Scotland has proposed a second referendum on independence from the UK. Westminster said no.

Do you think that Scotland should be allowed a second referendum, now that they have been dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the overwhelming majority?

Or do you think they should shut up and be quiet?

alwaysaplonker ^

Fat finger ^

It's two directors and the Co sec. Best to use link below.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07784342/officers

It

The BOD consists of the CEO and the recently promoted CFO. That's it. Effectively, one man and his dog (no offence intended, just coining a phrase there) .

As for the company's lawyers, well they give legal advice to the company, which the company either acts upon or it does not. That is all they do, advise.

So, when you say leave the BOD and their legal team to do what needs doing, you eare effectively saying leave it all in the hands of the CEO and the newly appointed director. But it's not that simple either.

The company will also act in accordance with the wishes of the two or three largest Russian shareholders who together form a majority. These shareholders own most of the company and nothing significant will happen to the company without their say so. Couple this with the fact that most of the assets are at the mercy of a Russian government which the major shareholders do not want to upset, you have a tricky situation.

It is therefore more accurate IMHO to say; leave it in the hands of the CEO and the other executive director, and they will do what they can subject to sign off from the largest shareholders who will be acutely aware of the political waters they need to navigate.

Of the upcoming resolutions at the AGM the only one that gives me slight concern is resolution 8. This resolution cuts the notice period for general meetings from 21 days to 14 days.

The AGM notice states that shorter notice period for general meetings would only be used when flexibility is merited and it is thought to be to the advantage of shareholders as a whole. However, I can't see an awful lot of situations where a reduced notice period would be an advantage to shareholders as a whole. Less notice will inevitably lead to less shareholders casting a vote on time.

I'm sure it will get passed. However, it will be interesting to see how this resolution plays out in practice.

The company has already made clear that UK citizens and UK based shareholders should get their own legal advice. I don't see why any further clarification should be forthcoming. If UK citizens or UK based shareholders don't participate then I suspect the company won't really care too much.

Minority PIs don't make much of a difference anyway. You can be sure that the oligarchs who hold the bulk of the shares have had legal advice. I doubt they are UK citizens or UK based anyway. It's their votes that will determine whether resolutions are passed or not, regardless of whether UK PIs can or cannot vote. The oligarchs have probably just appointed the Chairman to cast their votes as he sees fit. We're just drifting with the tide unfortunately.

To sum up, there will definitely be participation at the AGM it just may not be from UK PIs. And don't loose any sleep over it because even if you could participate as a UK PI it wouldn't have made diddly squat difference anyway.

It's more than suspended though, isn't it. It is also sanctioned. How long the sanctions remain and, more importantly, what the major shareholders and/or Russian government will do to the company/Russian assets in the meantime is a huge unknown.

Optimism always good but it does need to be balanced with a healthy dose of reality.

The website is back up and the AGM is due to be held at the end of this month.

It's being sold for £1, which is legal consideration for an asset.

More detail here on link below.

https://www.ft.com/content/624482dd-0a83-4377-b846-a6bc7dad7cef

My take on what they say about UralVagonZavod anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/05/uk-sanctions-steel-firm-evraz-russia-roman-abramovich

And wheels for railway cartridges. Wheels that were for civilian purposes only, but may possibly have also been used (in breach off contract) for tanks. Possibly, with nothing proven of course.

On most of the other BBs I've been on there have often been employees from the relevant company offering thoughts or insight.

It must be odd to work for a PLC that has been suspended and sanctioned. I'd imagine there may be concerns not only about the future of any shares held by staff but also about general job security going forward.

Has anyone on here seen recent posts on here from employees, or ex-employees? Most companies have social media policies but that doesn't stop all discussions, particularly from those that have moved on and are no longer bound by the policy.

Gains and losses for tax purposes arise following a disposal (or sale) of shares. This is when a loss or gain is realised.

If you still hold the shares, you haven't made a disposal giving rise to a loss or gain.

My guess is that the suggestion is that the majority shareholders may be syphoning cash from Evraz to help fund their lives without the knowledge of the wider world... ? I don't think there was any suggestion of government action or inaction, inept or otherwise.

Let's hope that the majority shareholders are not desperate enough to put their metaphorical hands in the metaphorical till. If they do, I hope they leave an IOU note or two.

"The Company will inform investors about key developments in due course."

I can't help but see this as a positive. At least they haven't turned their backs on us.

IMHO the UK entity is an embarrassment to the government and they would happily see it go into liquidation. The Tories would see that as a victory of their own over the Russians.

We're just collateral damage unfortunately.

I'm sure that the majority shareholders are being kept fully up to date on developments and the plans for the future. Probably getting conference calls, glossy slides and access to the CEO on demand.

The minority shareholders can go suck a lemon. A frigging lemon...