Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Dtz Holdings LSE:DTZ London Ordinary Share GB0002606118 ORD 5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 6.96p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0.00 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Real Estate Investment & Services 341.3 -3.4 -4.6 - 19.13

Dtz Share Discussion Threads

Showing 951 to 969 of 975 messages
Chat Pages: 39  38  37  36  35  34  33  32  31  30  29  28  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
26/1/2012
21:25
I don't see it matters when the deal was done. As BP says, deals often get sorted at weekends, partly to ensure the market can be made aware of the information in an orderly manner. Imagine the disorder and unfairness if the news were to be released during trading hours. This may be of interest... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9042682/Pre-pack-administration-overhaul-dropped.html
typo56
26/1/2012
18:13
no it wasn't. Deals usually get completed at weekends.
bubble pricker
17/1/2012
10:14
The mere fact that the deal was struck at the weekend just goes how underhand the whole thing was.
duncandisorderly
15/1/2012
23:57
I was able to buy back at 0.3p after the de-listing, and I took that opportunity to close my short rather than wait forever for it to be closed out at zero. On that article, which [ ] kindly posted: "The Tianjin Innovative Financial Investment Company (TIFI), a company responsible for building a huge investment zone in the northern Chinese city of Tianjin, can be revealed as the mystery party. It submitted an offer worth £50m more to DTZ's shareholders and £40m more to its creditors, RBS, than the deal accepted from Australian group UGL. [...] In a report from the administrators, Ernst & Young, the TIFI offer was described as 'unfunded'. The report said the offer would have taken eight weeks to complete, and that the board considered this to be too risky a proposition in the face of the company's cashflow position." So there you go, it was an "unfunded" offer. TIFI were flying a kite and kicking some tyres. DTZ was in a cash flow crisis. RBS had cut off further credit. The TIFI "offer" was supposedly £40 better to RBS than the prepack, but RBS still rejected the offer. That just speaks columes about the confidence RBS had in the offer. "The source close to TIFI argued that if its 18p-a-share had been made public, the market would have rallied around the company." This is of course bonkers. TIFI essentially did not really have the dosh, or were not willing to really put it on the table. Instead they were hoping the market would "rally" around DTZ just on the announcement. Well, why did they not announce a hostile takeover then, after they were turned turn by the DTZ board and RBS? They cannot have been too serious about their intentions.
bubble pricker
14/1/2012
16:09
According to the recent RNS, DTZ's financial advisor and broker contacts are: David Arch and Michael Shaw Oriel Securities 020 7710 7600 Do I take it Mr Cawkwell that IG haven't closed you out at zero yet? If so, I'm in a similar position. Also stuck in BSLA now. Such a nuisance!
typo56
14/1/2012
15:39
BP Just to clarify - you don't know me or understand my interest here or elsewhere. But I have no financial interest in DTZ. I am however interested in the welfare of folks who feel they have been screwed over. SC - tried a few basic internet searchs without success. I am sure someone can advise though.
loverat
14/1/2012
11:31
Gentlemen, Does anybody know and therefore can advise who was DTZ's brokers? Simon Cawkwell
simon cawkwell
13/1/2012
19:09
Loverat, your last comment speaks volumes yet again. You just are not able or willing to take personal responsibility for your decisions. You want others, "them", the cops, the FSA, to sort things out for you. There was no fraud. This is not a matter for any authority. The directors may have made a poor business decision, in which case you are free to take it up with them as a shareholder. As a taxpayer I am glad that no public authority will waste a penny of money or a minute of time on this. A last minute, anonymous bid at the eleventh hour was not a viable proposition for the directors, nor for RBS, the main creditor, who did not support this last ditch bid. So what exactly is your problem?
bubble pricker
10/1/2012
13:07
Looks like one for the cops.
loverat
09/1/2012
13:45
it was 48.8 mil and refinance debt.That's the thing we should be looking into.How many B class shares did the major shareholders get in the new company I wonder???Corruption at it's highest level.The fraud office should be looking into this.
duncandisorderly
09/1/2012
12:53
Yes SpectoAcc, I think our thoughts should go out to the loyal shorters and their dependents who courageously battled to maintain an orderly market before being unjustly taken out on that spike towards 10p. Absolutely disgraceful. They should do something about this!
typo56
09/1/2012
12:32
The only interesting thing here is it shows how much insider-trading was going on when the shares did that spike up to 10p. Nice to see them get burnt: just hope they weren't sufficiently "informed" to dump again in time. UGL paid an EV of at least £77m for DTZ; an offer of £49m for 50% clearly wasn't a better outcome for the debt holders (chiefly RBS). DTZ was in a hole; add in working capital requirements and much less than £49m would have gone into repayment, as opposed to most of the £77m from UGL. To presume the other deal was better is to assume that DTZ were in a temporary fix that another capital injection could solve. The evidence is to the contrary.
spectoacc
09/1/2012
12:17
What a fu*king con,talk about fraud.What can we do....... The administrators' report into the collapse of DTZ reveals that on December 2 last year a confidential bidder offered to make a £48.8m equity injection into the company and refinance its debt in exchange for a 50.1pc shareholding. However, just three days later, DTZ announced it was being sold to Australian group UGL through a pre-pack administration that valued the company's equity at zero and removed it from the stock market. The report by Ernst & Young says the alternative bid was rejected by DTZ's directors because they considered there was "insufficient time" to implement the proposal, it posed "too great a risk" because of a cashflow crisis and the chance UGL could walk away, and it did not have the support of DTZ's main lender Royal Bank of Scotland. The bid would have maintained the company's stock market listing, required shareholder approval, and taken about eight weeks to complete. DTZ was valued at £500m in 2006 but the agent ran into trouble as the property market crashed and it suffered disruption from failed takeover talks with its largest shareholder Saint George Participations
duncandisorderly
09/1/2012
11:06
who are "they"?
bubble pricker
09/1/2012
09:24
Thanks Loverat.. The deal itself is a fishy deal as everyone knows... It is just a matter of time for the eruption of the details involved.
planet9
09/1/2012
00:43
Well, there was a slight problem with the bid: "The report by Ernst & Young says the alternative bid was rejected by DTZ's directors because [...] it did not have the support of DTZ's main lender Royal Bank of Scotland". That's a bit of a non-starter. In any case, Loverat you keep going on about "they" must do something. Who are "they"? You just fail to grasp that you as an investor are responsible for your own decisions. When you buy a share, you put your money into the hands of the management. If that management squander away your money, you have to take it up with management as a shareholder. There is no third party ("they") that will help you. You are free to take the directors to court for making the wrong decision and rejecting the bid. Good luck with that.
bubble pricker
07/1/2012
03:31
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/dtz-rejected-last-minute-48-195207433.html
planet9
28/12/2011
13:27
Yeah Loverat, your idea is brilliant and a sure fire way to get yourself landed with a libel lawsuit. Planet9, who are "they" anyway? The company directors? You will recall that they warned you back in October that there will be little if any value for shareholders.
bubble pricker
26/12/2011
09:50
Planet9 That's the spirit. As you say it might not work but there are a number of avenues you could pursue. Nothing ever gets done by meekly walking away. One idea if you have the expertise or know someone who does is to build a website with a list of wrongdoers. One well known example is that someone built up a complaint website about solicitors a few years back. The Law Society took five years to close it down at a cost of £150,000 (at least) and at a massive cost to their reputation and the offenders listed. A couple of weeks later a successsor site has been established and building up nicely again. If the reputation of the offenders here is still important to them that might be a step worth considering.
loverat
Chat Pages: 39  38  37  36  35  34  33  32  31  30  29  28  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:40 V: D:20161210 16:37:08