Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Invu LSE:INVU London Ordinary Share GB00B28Y2K12 ORD 0.1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 0.35p 0.00p 0.00p - - - 0.00 05:00:10
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Software & Computer Services 2.7 0.3 0.1 5.8 0.59

Invu Share Discussion Threads

Showing 776 to 800 of 800 messages
Chat Pages: 32  31  30  29  28  27  26  25  24  23  22  21  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
14/8/2014
17:10
Blimey trade gone through at 0.35. And the buyer biding for more at same price
graham1ty
17/6/2014
14:42
Received email from Ian Smith this morning: "The Annual General Meeting will be held at Invu, Blisworth Hill Farm, Stoke Road, Blisworth Northants, NN7 3DB on 14 July 2014 at 9am."
looby loo
16/6/2014
18:49
Graham1TY, Has the AGM date been announced? (There's nothing on the website yet.) If its at 9am, that would be most inconsiderate!
looby loo
16/6/2014
05:55
AGM 9am on a Monday morning in Northants. Shareholder friendly
graham1ty
25/4/2014
20:38
Smithie6, Where did you hear FD, Ian Smith had "just left"? According to these links, he's still with Invu. HTTP://www.invu.net/investor-relations/directors.aspx HTTPS://www.linkedin.com/pub/ian-smith/b/85a/3b2
looby loo
25/4/2014
20:13
if trading well seems strange that MD and FD have just left
smithie6
25/4/2014
20:12
anyone know more ?
smithie6
07/3/2014
10:30
anybody have any further development here? company appears to be trading well. any options for shareholders?
twixm100
13/2/2014
00:15
11 February 2014 Colin Gallick leaves Invu PLC having successfully completed turnaround: HTTP://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/start-up--turnaround-expert-gallick-launches-new-career-as-specialist-non-exec-director-244844121.html
looby loo
29/11/2013
10:54
RM - I decided today to cut my losses and sold at .35p - so my opinion on the matters you cite is now irrelevant. Good luck to the company and those who decide to stay in.
cliffpeat
28/11/2013
18:17
Cliff What do you think about the chairmans role in the past, especially the false accounts ? And whether ord. shareholders would get same divi as A shares ? And have you met him at any AGM ? ----- profdoc what do you think about the chairman and that he revealed AFTER the letter to shareholders that he was in fact a beneficiary in the 2 big shareholders... so he could in fact be the 99% owner of those 2 by doing it via an RNS AFTER the letter went out....then normal shareholders would not know....since many/most will not be checking the web every day to see if INVU has issued an RNS and looks like the execs. quite happily collaborated with the chairman....I'm sure the execs. knew all along....and were quite happy to sign accounts that made no mention of it...
riggedmarkets
28/11/2013
18:09
in any case, do ord. shareholders qualify for same distribution ...say of any divi ...as A shareholders.... or do A shareholders get 10 times as much No one knows. A shares are 0.01p ord. shares are 0.001p Company Act 2006 says imo that divi etc is paid wrt nominal value of the share. ie. that A shares get 10 times as much, thats my understanding anyway but if so then the papers for the issue of the A shares were an intentional misrepresentation imo and ord. shareholders would not have voted yes if A shares get 10 times the divi of ord. shares in which case redress via the courts would be possible, but only if shed out loads of lawyer fees first !
riggedmarkets
28/11/2013
18:05
good question in the past they have imo shafted shareholders false accounts....they claimed X million in sales....and in fact those sales didnt imo exist....stuff was at re-sellers but those re-sellers had NOT paid for the stuff and had NOT sold it !! was it intentional ? did the previous MD sell his shares at a high price based on those false sales numbers ? the MD has his shares in a Cayman Islands trust at 1 time.... and I think had them in Montague Ltd at another....and INVU now owns Montague ltd !!.... I dont know if anyone can explain the history I was amazed that the MD got a loss of office payment, lucky if the police didnt knock on his door imo. the salary of the FD is imo nuts for such a small co. ....is he highly paid by the owners to 'keep him sweet' with any orders they give ?? the co. looks now to be owned by the chairman and his mum did he or any of his vehicles ever sell shares at a high price based on false accounts ...to them buy the company at a low price ? using a part of any gains....I dont know What is the story with INVU Inc. turning into INVU plc ? ----- did the co. knowingly raise money from the UK public knowing their accounts were false, ie. claimed 'sales' but re-sellers had not actually made sales ! --- Life as a shareholder. Current accounts do not reveal the 3% holders..... ...so when it is de-listed I assume it wont either !! Chairman pulled back the curtain a little after the delisting letter was sent out....ref. his being a beneficiary of the 2 biggest shareholdings.... Shore Capital are involved. ....I do NOT trust them one little bit....israeli or jewish linked broker....played a disgraceful part in OCH...court case for administration currently in process in Cayman Islands... --- I note that the co. still had links with David Morgan, ex MD ....not good imo considering he was MD when the accounts were false Israeli factor is not good imo. eg. if they move registered office to there then lose the protection of UK Company Act....and if ever want to take a legal case vs the chairman then who is going to bother taking a case over to Israel, no one. ---- the record of the new MD looks OK.....but if the co. owners say 'dance'....I assume he'll have no choice but to dance ! any co. having over 30% being held by 1 person is not good. INVU is virtually all controlled by the chairman imo. ---- spin a coin !
riggedmarkets
27/11/2013
09:47
Does anyone have any idea what life will be like a shareholder in this company when it does not have its shares traded on a regulated exchange? How trustworthy are the BOD in terms of looking after minority rights? Will they fulfil our worst fears and remove all value from the ordinary shareholders or will they act decently, producing a flow of dividends over a number of years?
profdoc
20/11/2013
14:25
btw in one placing in 2009 I see that the dirs. voted in favour of the issue of new shares that they would take up some of.... but which they would NOT offer to shareholders hxxp://www.invu.net/PDF/Circular%20re.%20proposed%20placing%20and%20issue%20of%20convertible%20loan%20notes%20and%20convening%20general.pdf so imo I wouldnt be surprised to see the directors do similar things in the future (imho you should be allowed to vote for something that will give a benefit or special terms to you compared to other ord. shareholders but hey, its AIM, there are no rules !)
riggedmarkets
20/11/2013
13:19
lets also recall that the bod has the power to issue 200M new A shares at any moment if they wanted, no need to ask permission.... ---- any new shares MUST be offerred pro rata to existing A share holders interesting the A shareholders STRICTLY require pro rata distribution where they are concerned for any new shares but for ord. shareholders the chairman and the A shareholders bypassed the shareholders (who were the owners of the co.) and REFUSED to let them take part in any capital processes, just for the chairman and his mum and contacts
riggedmarkets
20/11/2013
13:12
GrahamiTY each to their own views but imo they havent treated shareholders or the minority with respect 1) the issue of A shares was not offerred pro rata to shareholders as is required by the Company Act 2006. (enough shareholders apparently voted to bypass the law) 2) the issue of A shares was to parties owned or controlled by the chairman something that goes against the Company Act 2006 and the rules/spirit of the takeover panel (1 party should only have less than 30% otherwise it is deemed that they control the company or have too much power) (shareholders apparently voted to allow it to happen) 3) the conditions for the A shares were/are blatantly unfair and in the case of a wind up of the company the ord. shareholders would basically get nothing compared to A shareholders, regardless of the assets distributed (whereas many ord. shareholders think they would get 1/3rd of any distribution above 3M, wrong, cap. of ord. shares is 169k while A shares capital is around 3M and winding up distribution would be proportional to capital, after A shares get first 3M, clearly ord. shares would get basically zero in any winding up if it were to happen, would the chairman push it thru since he holds a lot of A shares and hence benefit ???!!!...and directors have options for around 10M A shares, and could at any moment be given more) imo the offer as it was worded should not have been allowed to be presented to shareholders, since it was an intentional misrepresentation of the reality. But on AIM, it is common to have IPOs and other documents which are intentional misrepresentations of the reality, in order to hoodwink the public and get their money. eg. the IPO OCH, Shore capital I think did it, also involved in INVU. The city works by making money for itself, having no regulation helps them with that. I note that the LSE and AIM are owned and operated by the brokers, not by the Govt. or some independant body.
riggedmarkets
20/11/2013
07:54
Well, did not see how many voted against.....thought 75% a very high hurdle.....but enough persuaded to back the main shareholders. With AIM costs of prob £200,000 pa must make sense.....apart from lack of trading facility....hope they continue to treat minority with respect....
graham1ty
19/11/2013
11:28
The resolution was passed and the company is de-listing from AIM. For those interested in the business, you might look at the INVU YouTube channel that has recently been uploaded. And if you are an accountant, this was a particularly positive and persuasive short video hxxp://youtu.be/SzkcrgX9LKk [h x x p is = h t t p (without the spaces)]
cliffpeat
17/11/2013
23:45
Hi, total novice with very little shares. Can someone advise me should I sell now (before the vote date) or should I hold on. Selling now means I have some cash for the shares albeit at a great discount to the amount I put in. I bought at 1.4p. What are the possibilities if I hold on? and if there is any possibility to sell the shares later how likely would that be and would it be quite long term? Thanks in advance for any advice. Idd
idd
16/11/2013
20:25
ah ha !! AFTER de-listing then the AIM rules no longer apply the 75% required to de-list is an AIM rule ---- to sell the subsidiaires or wind up the co. 'if' it de-lists would it only be 51% ? and the chairman and his mum have enough votes to do that... they have around 42% of ord. votes imo if include dirs. votes and if only 80% vote then 42% of all shares is enough to vote over 51% --- if de-list could the chairman vote through to sell the company to the A shareholders for say 1000 pounds ? If the A shareholders can put thru enough ord. votes to do it....could they vote thru a sale at a crazy cheap price ? if needed just joggle the accounts to produce bad numbers one time , if need help to justify it ( like write off some of the receivables....they did that in dec 2008 or delay some sales ( put thru a discount if buy just "after" the financial year end !!...but dont tell shareholders....and sales 'inside' financial year would show a fall) ( at other companies, sales sometimes get moved forward or back imo, as suits directors and/or friends...to allow them to offload or fill up at best prices) ---- what is the chairmans link with IRIS ? if he is a partial owner....then perhaps he would like to buy INVU...at as low a price as possible...depends what % he owns of IRIS and what % of INVU --- the true % the chairman owns in INVU is.....secret !!! not declared...good old AIM !! ----- dirs. are on high wages...esp. the FD for a co. with 30 workers ...imo they will dance the tune of the owners, which means the chairman. ---- deferred shares, A shares, receivables write down, etc etc payout is relative to nom. capital paid....which favours the A shares rights on wind up , non-voting A shares to get around the takeover panel fleecing PIs by issuing shares at high prices to later buy the co. at a low price they know how to play a lot of games imo !.... while over last 10 years they have not done so well at business !!
riggedmarkets
16/11/2013
20:13
I think that dirs. have options for around 10M A shares, also some ord. shares. of around 320M A shares. say 3% lets say that A shareholders increase that to 10% to make sure that the dirs. 'co-operate' ! if sell off subsidiaries and then wind up the co. then a) if 3M squid sale price X years in the future dirs. get 300k exceeds the MDs investment in ord. shares of 50k pnds AND the MD would get 150-200k lay off payment so would get 500k versus his investment of 50k so, imo he would go along with what the A shareholders wanted,....in his interests to
riggedmarkets
16/11/2013
20:05
"It may swing on the meaning of "pari passu" - but you may well be right about the dividends." means equal rights so, imo, if give a divi to A share holders than have to also do so to ord. shareholders but !! imho, not being a company lawyer, the company papers and the Company Act 2006 are clear and without doubt imo in that returns are relative to capital paid up...and that refers to nominal capital and not premium capital. (if there are different share issues of shares on nom. value of say 100p ....then if someone pays 300p in 1 share issue...and another person pays 500p in later share issue....of shares of nom. value of 100p...then they qualify for same divi per 1 share, the different prices they paid is not relevant A shares have 0.01 of capital while ord. have 0.001 of capital so I wonder if ords. qualify for 1/10th of what A shares get but if so then the MD would not be happy since he paid 50k pnds for a chunk of ord. shares but he has around 7M share options for A shares --- that might not have been the intention...... but it appears to be what the papers say imo if add the deferred shares capital then you get 0.01p for the ords. but the papers are clear in that the deferred shares have essentially no rights...so imo cant add them back in UNLESS !! one argues that the paid up capital of the ord. shares WAS 0.01p ...when issued. but i dont think that can do that... have to use their value now....which is just 0.001p.... 1/10th of an A share ---- 'if' ord. shares were only to get 1/10th of divi of A shares... then surely the share price would have collapsed to 0 and no one would have bought any ...ever...since the A shares were issued, except dozy PIs ! and especially this last week.....and some buys have gone thru... unless it is A shareholders buying ...to make sure they can vote to de-list and have more power for the A shares and vote through whatever they want in the future for a small extra investment like moving reg. office to Israel ! perhaps where the owners are or selling the co. to themselves for 500 quid....if they can vote something through then they can do what they want imo ---- if sell subsidiaries ...I think there may be a holding co. 1 layer down...so perhaps could sell that and then wind up the top level co..... then A shares would get virtually everything ord. share capital is around 169k while A share capital is around 3M first 3M goes to A shares and then I think it is pro rata of what is left over and pro rata for 3M versus 169k means that ord. shares would get essentially nothing. But ord. shares voted yes to it, so more fool them ! but maybe the chairman and his mum used their ord. share votes to push the vote thru.....to then benefit themselves with the A shares !! shouldnt have been allowed to vote their ord. shares imo since a yes vote gave them benefit
riggedmarkets
15/11/2013
17:52
so looking at paperwork it appears that INVU raised 4M pounds in june 2007 and then surprise surprise in the next accounting period it appeared that its accounts were false and the share price crashed infers to me that the offer documentation for the share issue in june 2007 was false, since based on false accounting numbers ( they claimed that they made sales to re-sellers but in fact all they did was move stuff to a re-seller, the re-seller did not in fact have a buyer for it....and hence did not pay to INVU !! so, later it exploded and declared that receivables value was false and it was largely wiped out, knocking seven bells out of the accounts since massive amount relative to labour costs, sales and profit) ---- Did the MD sell before, after or still has that 19% ? listed in Cayman islands ( always a worry imo if the MD holds his shares in some trust in a tax haven where no one can touch him or his assets !!) not listed as a current large holder so it looks like he must have sold at some time did he sell at a high price and benefit from false accounts ? ---- anyone here invest in that 2007 cash raising at a high price and lose a lot afterwards when it was declared that the accounts were false ? ---- Herald Investments held around 5% at one time ouch ! a prof. fund manager they should have been able to notice to dodgy accounts...looks like they didnt very easy I guess to be dragged in when the MD, FD and chairman claim say that growing well and everything is going well, new products etc etc
riggedmarkets
15/11/2013
17:48
RM. 1. Dividends: The resolution of 29 July 2011 says ".... payments of dividends to the holders of every class of shares in the capital of the company pari passu as if the same constituted one class. (This was before the subdivision of the ordinaries) Clause 139 of the articles (also dated 29/07/11) does seem to say that dividends will be paid "proportionately to the amounts paid up on the shares ...." It may swing on the meaning of "pari passu" - but you may well be right about the dividends. 2. Capital distribution. This appears to apply only in the event of liquidation. I would guess that the most likely "exit" scenario for the company would be the sale of the business rather than the shares - followed by liquidation. If the company declares a dividend of £1m: it appears that an ordinary would be entitled to either a) .21 of a penny a share or b) .031 of a penny. So compared with current cash in price per share of about .3 of a penny that would be a yield of 70% or about 10% If the company sells for £10m the ordinaries would get .31 of a penny - which is about current price. The holder(s) of the A shares would get most of the proceeds. All calculations subject to error of principle and calculation - so please do your own research and check and amend if you are making decisions. But if this was always the case why is the company saying that the listed shares have been undervalued?
cliffpeat
Chat Pages: 32  31  30  29  28  27  26  25  24  23  22  21  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:34 V: D:20161207 20:18:07