||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Davenham Share Discussion Threads
Showing 2876 to 2899 of 2900 messages
|Sorry folks but this was inevitable IMO, especially given the repeated warnings by the BOD.|
|Davenham - RIP ............. and its shareholders|
|3 October 2011
Davenham Group plc
("Davenham" or the "Company" and, together with its subsidiaries, the "Group")
Notice of intention to appoint Administrators
Davenham refers to its announcement on 28 March 2011 in which the Company confirmed that, in order to extend the steady platform from which to continue the run-off of the Group's loan book for the benefit of the Group's Banking Syndicate, the Banking Syndicate had extended the maturity of the Group's on demand bank facility from 31 March 2011 to 30 September 2011.
Following discussions between the Banking Syndicate and the Company, the Banking Syndicate has (following the expiry of the term of that facility on 30 September 2011) informed the Company that it will not be extending or renewing that facility and has demanded immediate repayment.
Given that the Group is unable to repay the amounts due to the Banking Syndicate following the expiry of the term of the facility, the Board has concluded that the Board should appoint Administrators to the Company (and to the remaining members of the Group) and therefore the Board intends to file with the Court (later today) the applicable notices of the intention to make those appointments.
The Board understands that the Administrators will work with the existing management team to complete the run-off of the Group's loan book in a prudent and orderly manner. The run-off to date has seen the Group meet (or exceed) the financial milestones set by the Banking Syndicate as part of the run-off process.
The Board anticipates that trading in the Company's shares on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange will be suspended by the London Stock Exchange with effect from 12.45pm today. The Board currently anticipates that the formal appointment of Administrators to the Company will take effect by no later than 10 October 2011.|
|facilities due up for review at the end of the month - does anyone know if it is likely they will be renewed ?|
|Sooner this tara dog is put to sleep the better.|
|apparently Davenham were mentioned in questions at the House of Commons earlier this evening - they are attempting to make one of their clients bankrupt even though he has paid back £2.2m against an original lend of c £1.7m. An MP has taken up his constituents case and is asking questions of the role of the RBS (84% overnment funded), how well they know Davenham, are they aware of their business practices in making their clients bankrupt in this manner - he has asked the treasury to look into this and spoken with the RBS directly - no doubt RBS will argue that this is a straightforward banker/client relationship|
|There is a plenty of potential in this share & ridicularly valued only at 0.5M due to unwanted and unjustified motive of a few individuals(rather say pride not letting anyone else(experts) to turn this company around as a priofit making Giant)killing this company out of character--its a complete waste of share holders money down the drain. I still can't understand why this is allowed to happen & everyone else is just sitting back & watching while this company is completely/systematically destroyed--utter madness/waste. No justice for small investors--something must be done like News International/News of the world saga.What is the differnce between dictator killing his own people and company like this destroying small investors hard earned money not trying their best(duty of every citizen)to make return of their atleast full or part of their investment.|
|is this about to do another dav spike for no reason like it did in sept 10?|
|tara still ramping this one?|
|Hello, Please under what circumstances does a group of directors insist in all circumstances that there will be no value for their shareholders? This is ridiculous isn't it?|
|LUFC - I question how interested David Anthony is in DAV now he's joined Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank (WLB)
WLB recently acquired the new business division of SME specialist lender, Commercial First. The interesting part of the deal is the Johnson's, who built ComFirst have in effect cast aside there old business to concentrate building WLB into a new SME mortgage specialist - imho David Anthony will have his hands full with WLB - Murtagh will probably benefit from the WLB product rollout as he runs an intermediary channel.
Probably why the DAV newsflow has died...but you never know with DAV anything can happen ;)
SAM looks like a better turnaround bet imho moving off recent falls - new CEO leadership and solid newsflow|
|I'm now convinced that someone is out there stakebuilding, as I noticed 1% of dav bought yest'(262k). That's on top of 3 previous 200k+ buys over last few weeks.|
|Hi guys - lots of share sales (500k +) since 18/3 - do you think holders are selling off before the end of month deadline in view of the uncertainty of what might happen here ??|
I'm keeping quiet on this one.
You can make of that what you will.|
|well lufc5 mate another 200k buy today...ahve a feeling 1 or the big boys is loading up and they will ahve another go??? took 50k and bet we will get another spike as another attempt is made?|
.....The decent buys recently.....£5k in one go at around 16:23 today. Keep ones eyes peeled especially these next couple of weeks.....someone somewhere is buying.|
|Suchchi - do you think that this is a realistic option at this stage ?|
|I just copied from WTV bb about a new law that a share holder/s can claim against a director who fails to carry out his duties in the interest of share holders. See below(DA & MURTURGH can use this Law as their last weapon in order to create share holder value),
Companies Act 2006 & derivative claims by shareholders
Stephan Weber of Sykes Anderson LLP discusses the new statutory provisions under the Companies Act 2006 in respect of derivative claims by shareholders
A derivative claim is a claim brought by a shareholder against a director (or a third party) on behalf of the company. It is described as derivative because the shareholder's right to sue is not personal to him but derives from a right of the company but which the company has failed to exercise. Previously, a derivative claim only existed under common law but not under statute.
This has now changed. From 1 October 2007 a new statutory claim replaces the existing common law action.
The old common law position
Under common law, a shareholder could bring a derivative action in the company's name just in limited circumstances. Generally, only the company itself was regarded to be the proper claimant in respect of a wrong alleged to be done to the company and the court would not interfere with the internal management of the company as long as it acted within its power. Accordingly, where the majority of the company's shareholders have made the decision not to bring a claim, this would typically be the end of the matter.
However, where the company was controlled by the wrongdoer(s) and the acts complained of were of a fraudulent character or beyond the powers of the company, a single shareholder could potentially bring a claim to remedy the wrong and such proceedings could not be blocked by the majority.
Yet, the common law was very complex and only few derivative actions ever succeeded.
The new statutory derivative claim
Rather than enshrining the common law into statute, the new sections 260 to 269 of the Companies Act 2006 ("the Act") introduce a wider range of circumstances in which a derivative claim may be brought by a shareholder. These changes came into force on 1 October 2007 and allow a shareholder to pursue a derivative claim in respect of an actual or proposed act or omission involving negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust by a director of the company. The general duties of a director are now set out in Part 10 of the Act and have been the subject of considerable debate. A breach of duty will be actionable even if the director has not benefited personally from the breach. Moreover, it will not be necessary for the shareholder to show that those directors who carried out the wrongdoing control the majority of the company's shares.
Once derivative proceedings have been issued, the claimant shareholder must notify the company of the claim and apply to the court for permission to continue the claim.
At a first stage, the shareholder must put forward a prima facie case for permission to continue the proceedings. The court will consider the issue merely on the basis of the evidence filed by the shareholder. It must dismiss the application if a prima facie case is not made out.
If the court dismisses the application at this stage, the claimant may, within 7 days, ask for an oral hearing to reconsider the decision. It is as yet unclear whether the claimant has an automatic right to an oral hearing or whether the court has discretion to refuse such a hearing.
The company is not required to participate in any of this although it may choose to do so at its own costs.
At a second stage, the court will decide in a main permission hearing and on evidence from the applicant and the respondent(s) whether the case should proceed.
The court must refuse permission to continue the claim if it is satisfied that a person acting in accordance with the duty to promote the success of the company would not bring the claim, or if the act or omission complained of has been authorised or ratified by the company.
Otherwise, the court must consider a number of factors in deciding whether or not to give permission, including:-
·whether the shareholder is acting in good faith in seeking to continue the claim;
·whether the company has decided not to pursue the claim;
·whether the act or omission is likely to be authorised or ratified;
·whether the act or omission gives right to a cause of action which the member could pursue in his own right rather than on behalf of the company;
·the importance which a member acting in accordance with the duty to promote the company's success would attach to the claim.
Further, section 263(4) states that, in considering whether to give permission, the court shall have 'particular regard to any evidence before it as to the views of members of the company who have no personal interests, direct or indirect, in the matter'.
The procedure is set out in detail in new CPR 19.9 and the corresponding Practice Direction.
If the application is dismissed, the court may make any consequential order that it considers appropriate, including an order against the applicant to bear the costs of the application. Such an order is likely to be made where permission to continue the proceedings is denied. However, where permission is granted, the company may be ordered to fund the litigation both on behalf of the claimant shareholder and the defendant director.
The requirement for a claimant to make a prima facie case from the outset and the potential for the court to award costs against the claimant should serve as a deterrent preventing disgruntled shareholders from bringing vexatious claims just for the sake of causing trouble. However, whether this will be enough to prevent increased tactical litigation under the new statutory regime against directors by so-called active shareholders will depend on how the courts will react to any 'fishing' litigation.
It is likely that a shareholder seeking redress will still prefer to bring a petition on grounds of unfair prejudice under new section 994 of the Act (old section 459) with the prospect of recovering damages on its own behalf and not for the company rather than commencing a derivative action. Moreover, a section 994 petition now seems to be the only available remedy if the company is controlled by the wrongdoer(s). However, the legal position as to fraud on the minority and wrongdoer control might still require further clarification.
What companies should do Practical steps
Directors should be made aware of their now codified duties and kept up-to-date. The statutory duties must be considered before any decision is taken and the fact that this was done should be recorded in the board minutes.
Further, companies should check and revise their document retention policies as supporting evidence for key decisions may be needed in future.
Companies should also check their D&O insurance and directors' indemnities (where provided) to ensure directors are covered for the cost of dealing with and defending derivative claims.
Further Bytestart Companies Act 2006 Articles
·Companies Act 2006 and Directors Duties
·Companies Act 2006 - Major Changes for Small Business Owners
Please note that this area of the law is a complex subject and you should not take or refrain from taking any step without full legal advice on your particular circumstances. The content of this article is of a general nature and no liability is accepted in connection with it or if any reliance is placed on it.
This is only my view that share holders of DAV has a claim against company directors who has failed miserably in their duties looking after share holders intersts by saying all the time that they are no longer benefit from share holdings instead of trying to maximise the share holder value for them.|
|DA continuing to buy perhaps ?|
|I wonder if there is a huge buy order in?????|
|well with all this negativity anyone explain why cant even now buy 10k online???...|
|..its been reported this morning in the Manchester Evening News that sources witnessed a rather fat lady being helped thru the front entrance of DAVs HQ today, clutching what looked like a song sheet? A spokes person for Davenham refused to comment on rumours the fat lady in question had started to sing..|
|How can shareholder value be created? The company is bust unless creditors waive their debts and why should they do that (to the detriment of their own shareholders and for the benefit of DAV's)?|