||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Irish Life&P.Gp Share Discussion Threads
Showing 4351 to 4372 of 4375 messages
|Sage. I hope you are aware the fight is still on. Like I predicted that the CJEU verdict is not the end. Peace.|
|No. Everybody should move on. Life is too short. Peace|
|Any more news Shareho1der?
I am interested......|
sage of suffolk
|I wonder why no one else is writing here.I have spoken to a Lawyer of mine and asked him to go over the CJEU documents. He found that in contrary to what the Irish newspaper are writing, the judgments are in the shareholders favour. In its conclusion, it is noted that the CJEU did NOT actually endorsed the Irish Government actions on issuing shares below the nominal value and not offered pre-emption rights without the approval of general meeting. CJEU only supported the government action on increasing the shares without approval.And it is up to the Irish High Court to make the decision, when the case goes back to them, if the Shareholders minimum rights have been respected. Anyone has different view on this?|
|The CJEU has answered the first question referred to it and we now know that the financial stability of EU is more important than Shareholders' rights .BUT the second question has NOT been answered and this will be referred back to the Irish High Court, who will investigate and decide if the ways the Bank recapitalisation were done breached the minimum rights of the Shareholders. No wonder the Irish Government is not yet claiming victory.|
|Cudman.You should go back to reading the opinion of the advocate general Wahl. In sections 80-89, Particularly, in the wording of Section 84. it seems the issue of the direction Order compatibility with European Law will be decided by the Irish High Court when the case goes back to them. Sections 91 and 92 give substance to this argument in shareholders favour. Especially when the Irish High Court makes decision on the proportionality of the direction order i.e. issuing shares below its nominal value. The Irish High Court will also be required to investigate the shareholders missing 453m which was not included in the recapitalising the Bank. This was explained in Sections 93-96.It is highly unlikely that CJEU rulings will be the end of this case. |
|that's that then|
|It is like a Police having the power to force entry into your house on suspicion of crime. But you are entitled to compensation if you can prove that the Police caused damages or loss of your items or properties.|
|This may sound confusing: By Law, The Irish Government does NOT need shareholders permission to intervene in a company that threatened its economy BUT its action in intervention must not breach shareholders rights like pre-emptions, nominal values, capital increases etc.The question many are asking is how/why can the government then breach shareholders rights if they are allowed to act without shareholders permission. That is for CJEU to decide and that is why they are paid fortune to entangled legal puzzles.|
|The opinion of the advocate general of the CJEU was out on 22 June. AG Wahl raised some matter of interest regarding our case. In his opinion, Mr Wahl said it is legal for the Irish Government to intervened in recapitalising PTSB in 2011 without the permission of the shareholders. BUT the manner the Irish Finance Minister, Mr Noonan went about it that need to be thoroughly investigated. The opinion of the advocate generals are often accepted and reflected in CJEU rulings. If you bought shares in IPM before 27 July 2011, you could be entitled to generous compensation depending on the number of shares you bought. GLA !!!|
|Cudman. Piotr and I are not giving up just yet.It's not over until the fat lady sings..|
|Not a whole lot going on here, have almost given on up this.
Looks a shambles.|
|I doubt if anyone is still in here|
|All too quiet here .Where is my friend investorpeasant.?What do you all think about the Court case next week 19 April ? In December, I sold all the shares I held since 2011 at £4.50 because I needed the money for Christmas. I am looking to buy back in when I have some funds.|
|> This show that following Loverat's advice can cost you a great deal of money.
Now, we intend to cost it all its remaining money.|
|Loverat represents the dregs of humanity. Lowlife, uneducated scum.
Its poisonous partner, mclellan, was happily removed the human genepool on June 16 at 5pm on the A66.
One must ask the obvious questions..........|
|the truth hurts they say|
|The idiot is at it again masquerading as a barrack room lawyer on threads discussing legal matters.
|anybody seen the rodent doesn't seem to post anymore|
|obviously as well as being a 'tedious and repulsive coward' the guy is seriously inept|
19 Jun'11 - 10:28 0 1
I think it is time to set up a dedicated thread for shareholders to express their concerns at the prospect of IPM directors destroying the investments of ordinary hard working people.
A group of shareholders are now campaigning for a fair deal. Yes - the Irish Government say that sacrifices have to be made to deal with the screw up by the last government. Fair enough - but the directors of our company should be fighting for our rights for a fair deal.
What evidence is there that they have acted in the interests of shareholders so far?
Not much. Judging by the letters Mr Cook sends to the Irish Government he may even be collaborating with the government to stitch up shareholders. Well, I have news for him - if he sells out on shareholders it will be shareholders who may very well be looking to him to reimburse their losses from his pocket.
I will be posting up various links to the action being taken.
23 May'15 - 10:58 - 8 of 8 1 0
Conclusive proof that Loverat's mouth is his own worst enemy.
This is the same fool who supported the Langbar shareholders who decided to stick with the Company Scheme of Arrangement - only to find out years later that the Scheme was nothing more than the means to allow the management to get access to the money - and keep it for themselves through fees and share dilutions.
Loverat attacked the Representative Action shareholders because they wanted a fairer share of their money back. Turned out that the RA shareholders received nearly 6 times the value back than the Scheme shareholders.
This show that following Loverat's advice can cost you a great deal of money.
I've since spoken to Scheme shareholders who wished that they never listened to this poisonous idiot and had joined the RA action instead.|