Member Info for WolfofWarks

'Wolf, quote taken from recent RNS.'

I admire Bob Holte and the job he has done here but personally I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Very interesting comments attributed to Gary Neagle in this weeks IC and FT slating European investors and their ESG at all costs approach. Whereas the US are less interesting in ESG and concentrate on yield.

Also talk of spinning off Teck's coal business with our thermal coal production into a New York listing.

Poor - It's not really news as such - they don't even hold it as ordinary shares it 's via a financial instrument and their potential voting rights would be around 3.6% 'Number of voting rights that may be acquired if the instrument is exercised/converted'.

CW is coincidentally held around 3.5% short so it wouldn't be illogical that these are the shares loaned out to the short positions given there are no other large holders of note.

There's an RNS at the end of Aug which was the last one we had regarding their holding.

'WolfoWarks, sorry I think you misread my message, BH has implied that BooHoo would put it into admin.'

Is this in any official comments? I've not seen anything to this affect in the RNSs.

How/why would BH put it in administration? It's not insolvent and even if it was they are not at the top of the list for security. All directors would lose control of the company and shareholders then sit at the bottom of the pecking order.

Depending on the RCF security the bank would probably end up with the lion's share.

it makes no sense.

'eePee - by my maths they are at 39% (27% vs 69%) of the vote based on their own holding VS other votes less founder shares (31%). Most PIs don't vote or are uninterested. Assuming the founders don't vote they only need 7.5% of the remaining shares to achieve 50% and for every vote not cast that % needed decreases.

Add to that RevB have managed to post the board recommendation the wrong way round on the voting forms and the less clued up PIs or those not paying attention might accidentally vote in favour of Boohoo's wishes.

I don't think that's a slim chance. I think it's a very strong position, by no means a certainty.'

Looking at the previous AGM vote, 28.8% voted in favour of BH proposals. So they have potentially 2% in the bag already needing only 5.5% and that's only if 100% of all the other shares votes and the founders abstain. If one of the IIs was to side with BH it's game over for Bob and Liz.

'Pee per

Why do you think you are some kind of messiah?

I literally imagine you in clown make up hold a balloon.'

It's either 'Investing for Dummies' or someone titting about with ChatGPT.

I haven't quite made my mind up yet.

'It's Boohoo's total of 29% versus 41% others.

The chances of Boohoo winning may be very slim.'

PeePee - by my maths they are at 39% (27% vs 69%) of the vote based on their own holding VS other votes less founder shares (31%). Most PIs don't vote or are uninterested. Assuming the founders don't vote they only need 7.5% of the remaining shares to achieve 50% and for every vote not cast that % needed decreases.

Add to that RevB have managed to post the board recommendation the wrong way round on the voting forms and the less clued up PIs or those not paying attention might accidentally vote in favour of Boohoo's wishes.

I don't think that's a slim chance. I think it's a very strong position, by no means a certainty.

Okehurst - from I can garner from the article Boohoo are bringing to the attention of the regulator what RevB said in an RNS recently about Boohoo's actions potentially delaying the accounts which will result in another delisting.

The second meeting being referred to is the EGM at the start of August - if you're a RevB holder you should have had a voting form from your broker.

‘Depends on turnout Oke...if founders abstain then going by the highest vote boo won at agm which was around 29% then boo likely would have around 42.4% of the rest of the eligible vote (29/68.4). ‘

The founders surely cannot exercise their vote from a moral

And ethical perspective. Bob’s already threatening them with legal action and he knows all the dirt that’s under the rug.

JG - I see it as a good strategic fit for both companies. Let’s not pretend the brown stuff don’t stink over at RevB though. Corporate governance was non existent with the previous board and the new board have just thrown it out of the window.

Bob has done a great job steadying the shop but he’s clearly not the right person to take them forward.

I think this situation can be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Boohoo have been opportunistic in what they have done but this is the fault of the ex directors in my opinion by giving BH the opportunity to acquire a decent chunk of the company at a knock down price.

Direct your anger at the people responsible not BH holders.

Maid - what a bizarre comment to make - they only just fell onto administration. They are where CW were at the end of August last year.

You have no idea of the outcome yet.

Poor - Beware of Ian, he's been talking complete nonsense for months.

John Nth - I was just explaining the situation. If you don't like it then that's neither here or there to me.

I was merely pointing out that these situations are usually a tad more complex then they appear on the surface and you can't just give a CEO a P45 and tell them to be done with it. There's always a heavy price to pay for executive loss of office.

I don't disagree that it's harsh and unfair.

You couldn't make this up! Boohoo must be p issing themselves laughing.

Well I clearly can't speak for Mooky now can I?

Ian - shareholders were deemed to have voted against the plan - it's all in the RCA.

My guess would be that they would have wanted to move to Newco with the management incentive plan.

As part of the restructuring the financial period was extended by six months so the results for the 18 month period are not due till the end of December now. My guess here would be that it would make sense to try and run them pretty much to the end of the DIP/C11 period.

The 12 month to 31st December are contained within the latest court dockets a showed a $3.5bn loss however these were unaudited.

Re the C11 - it gives them the best protection from creditors and also allows the directors to carry on running the company under the supervision of the courts. In a UK administration the board of directors are removed and an administrator is appointed to take over the affairs.

Https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/25/cineworld-bosses-bonus-scheme-worth-up-to-208m-gets-green-light

Mooky was due $200m dollars if Cineworld returned to pre pandemic levels.

I bet this compensation amount is tied to that scheme in some way.