We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lees Foods | LEE | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 232.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 232.00 | 232.00 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 25/5/2012 17:00 by isis It seems incredible that anyone would vote for the MBO at such a low offer price.Just shows how stupid some investors are. The problem with these Nominee Accounts is that you lose control of your shares on things like voting and Annual Reports etc. and many people don't bother checking their rights. Had they all seen the Documents and how low it was they may have voted differently. 0.4% is very tight though on such a small Company. It would have been nice to see the terms amended. |
Posted at 17/5/2012 23:16 by davidosh isis...I am afraid under the terms of the scheme of arrangement they need just 75% and then it is theirs and all holders have to release their holding to the new vehicle. A type of compulsory purchase scheme if you like. That is why they are doing it this way...they do not want any of the minority holders to remain here.There are a number of lingering questions though. Minority shareholders may still ask why a replacement independent director was not appointed when the only independent director and ex chairman fell ill and then died four months before this deal was put to shareholders ? If a truly independent director were involved in assessing this deal for all of the minority holders I rather think much more appraisal of whether the MBO offer was a fair one and encouragement of third parties to make a counter bid would have been seen. But why would an intending MBO team want to appoint someone that would achieve a higher and fairer price for investors and shareholders ?? There is a very good discussion thread on TMF on this subject btw... |
Posted at 16/5/2012 23:12 by davidosh rubstic...sorry I do not bet on the horses other than the National each year ! Had a second and third this year so rather pleased with that outcome and only a nose got in the way....As for LEEs, Best result maybe but not at this price rubstic. To be frank..You should be BUYING into companies making profits of over a million with nearly half the market cap in the bank so an enterprise value of three... not SELLING them !! You only seem to have ever posted on LEEs BB and only recently which makes me slightly concerned that investing is probably not your strong point !! Or maybe you just specialise in lowball MBO situations !! Picking winning horses consistantly and promoting or defending lowball opportunistic MBOs and trying to convince serious investors likewise is a mugs game IMHO. There is only one 'd' not a double btw ! |
Posted at 16/5/2012 21:25 by rubstic daviddosh, hope you took my tip from earlier. By that I mean the horse, but my tip that the buy out deal is the best result for all investors remains in place! |
Posted at 12/5/2012 13:56 by isis I suppose the best you can do is bring attention to the situation as you are doing but it looks like they have the bulk of the votes via subsidiary holdings.This would be a very bad precedent for AIM, Shareholders and Investors alike should they go ahead with this. It is clearly undervalued. |
Posted at 11/5/2012 18:09 by davidosh isis...Anything you can do to help the cause is much appreciated. This is not just about Lees and the cash grab as you put it...but also the ability that BoDs have to do this via SoAs if investors are asleep or not organised enough to block them.The directors clearly stated that the AIM listing valuation was very poor and did not provide a fair value for the company then had the nerve and brass cheek to offer 2.7% more minus the normal and expected dividend so actually a discount to the market price !! |
Posted at 09/5/2012 07:49 by cwa1 Some Lees press from this morning....The Herald LEES Foods, is sitting on a £2 million cash pile after annual profits rose 4.4% to just shy of £1m, according to results published days before investors vote on an attempted management buyout of the Lanarkshire macaroon maker. The news of the cash load, which doubled in the course of last year, will heighten controversy over the £5.6m takeover bid which some investors claim is too low. The results, which the company agreed to publish after investor pressure, show sales of its products, which include snowballs and teacakes, rose 8.9% to £20.3m in the year to December 31 and The Scotsman who have an interesting take on a referal to the Takeover Panel by some David Stredder fellow of The Share Society :-).... Shareholders campaigning against the proposed management buy-out of Lees Foods have referred the company to the Takeover Panel over fees offered to the broker recommending the £5.6 million deal. ShareSoc argues that Shore Capital which made the recommendation because all the confectionery firm's non-executive directors are involved in the offer stands to be paid higher fees if the 230p-a-share deal is accepted. They say that means it is not independent, although it is understood the situation is not unusual. The Takeover Panel said it does not comment on specific cases. Many individual shareholders say the offer undervalues Coatbridge-based Lees and are demanding a price above 300p. David Stredder, a Lees shareholder who is also a director of ShareSoc, said the group believed it had enough investors on side to vote down the attempt to take the company private at a meeting later this month. |
Posted at 04/5/2012 14:08 by davidosh The unions may think that taking the company off the market does no harm to the employees long term future but that is completely different to assessing whether the directors are paying a fair price to the minority holders. We totally depend on Shore Capital and their independence but that has been questioned by many investors and the Unions were never going to be remotely concerned about the shareholders and their return on investment as they are at the opposite end of the spectrum in that respect |
Posted at 27/4/2012 16:46 by cwa1 Delighted to see some good press in The Scotsman today:-SHAREHOLDER group ShareSoc has formally launched on online campaign aimed at rallying together small investors opposed to the management buy-out of Lanarkshire-based confectionery specialist Lees Foods. The group is aiming to block the deal at the proposed price of 230p a share being offered by Randotte, the vehicle representing directors behind the buy-out. Most small investors logging their opposition to the deal at ShareSoc's website cited a price of 325p to 350p as a more reasonable offer. Lees shareholder David Stredder, who is also a director of ShareSoc, said: "All shareholders that I am aware of are unhappy with the offer because we don't feel it values the company where it ought to." |
Posted at 20/4/2012 16:27 by davidosh Beattie1....so you do not prefer a 100% return over two years or even holding longer term as this company is clearly on the growth and improving profit and dividend trend !What about an investor who bought a few weeks after you at £2.50 as it got to that price too ? He loses and has held nearly as long The fact is you saw the purchase as a punt ! I prefer to call all my holdings investments and I like to take a close interest in them and build them over a number of years. LEE is being stolen from me at far too low a price and many other private investors agree, as do external valuers, market commentators and even the advisors. The share price is even higher than £2.30 currently. If we allow this to happen here then it will move through the Aim small caps like a disease where other boards will see the low valuations as an excuse to jump the market at as low a premium as possible....A 2.7% premuium is LOW is it not ? Interesting headline today in the Herald... And so say all of us ! |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
