Waterlogic Share Discussion Threads

[colonel a] 17/8/2007 09:55

And that would be about two weeks and a day since "yesterday".

[mongrels1] 14/8/2007 12:49

Is something untoward going on (again) here?

Seems odd to drop down to 57.5p with a bid at 65p highly likely.

[colonel a] 13/8/2007 09:34

Hopefully this is because they are being conscientious on our behalf ?
Not just running up a bill and then saying 65p is it.
But about two weeks starts now I would have said.

[knowsleyman] 03/8/2007 13:37

Spoke to Mazars yesterday. They do not expect to be able to make any further announcements for about 2 weeks.

[ptolemy] 03/8/2007 12:37

There have been less than 10 small sales (I think). If the take out price is 65p and you can sell now for 62p thats a difference of only £60. Perhaps some people will take the money now rather than wait. There is a chance that the bid will fail but there's also the chance that it will be topped by someone. I guess the sellers see the glass as half empty. I think the chance of mgt taking the company out is high.

I answered the question about what message it sends to market in an earlier post.

Hope it helps. You are not alone.....

[mongrels1] 03/8/2007 09:52

Strange to see a steady stream of small sells in the last week or so.

Surely there must be some upside here?

If the management don't proceed with their bid, what message does that send to the market? Their indication is that it will be 0.65 minimum (circa 4.5% better than current price).

Also there is a chance that other interested parties may emerge.

Any views most welcomed, feels a bit lonely being a holder here right now!

[ptolemy] 25/7/2007 08:09

I think Slater paid between 60-67p, Malborough 58p.

[mongrels1] 24/7/2007 11:29

Anyone know the likely price they paid?

A quick search looks like Slater paid about £0.71 and Marlborough £0.58. Can anyone confirm?

[ptolemy] 24/7/2007 10:53

Lawrence + Malborough + Slater = about 75%

Depends whether the Mal/Slater play ball, I guess...

[corrientes] 23/7/2007 18:42

If Mazars conclude that this is a fair offer, do they just issue a blanket statement to that effect or do they have to provide some form of justification ?

[bletherer] 23/7/2007 18:22

I believe you need 75% to delist and 90% for mandatory purchase.

Given that a lot of people will usually be unwilling to hold shares in a company that's gone private 75% is usually the critical level beyond which resistance is futile. E.g. once Glazer got there with Man Utd that was pretty much game over, and you're unlikely to have such strength of opposition with a run-of-a-mill company as you saw in that case.

[mongrels1] 23/7/2007 18:18

Does anyone know what percentage do they need to force all shareholders to sell?

Given that they have 63% they must be pretty close to the threshold.

[corrientes] 23/7/2007 16:54

As someone said, they'll not be able to delist if they don't achieve a high enough persentage and I'm definitely not going to be willing patsy, nor do I suspect will many others, the vast majority of whom must be nursing losses.Come on WTL management don't be bloody silly.

[bletherer] 23/7/2007 16:05

Why will they need to up their bid price when they already hold 63% of the company? Unless they are schizo I doubt the majority holders are going to object to their own offer. Maybe there'll be a counter-bid if someone else thinks these are going on the cheap but I'm not holding my breath.

[thepinkpanther] 23/7/2007 14:16

how much!

think they'll need to up their bid price

looks as though trying to get it cheap..........................

more like 80p+

[hattori_hanzo] 20/7/2007 10:44

Oooh! Whiffy fishy!

Doncha just luv the stockmarket! Remember.....ultimately, it's the biggest and most secret white collar crime scam in history.

[ptolemy] 20/7/2007 10:11

Offer price of 65p is probably breakeven for Slater. They certainly bought several 100k at 63p. Price probably will placate the one group who would have beenwilling to fight....

[colonel a] 20/7/2007 09:52

Ptolemy,

You're being too kind.
The management team are accepting salaries to represent the shareholders best interests - company law is fairly comprehensive about what this means.

The duty of a major shareholder not to act against the interest of minor holders also gets plenty of attention.

Trying to force through an mbo at a price which is clearly below an acceptable level is in clear breach of both of the above - IMO.

[ptolemy] 20/7/2007 08:10

shareholders need to partly rely on Marlborough and Slater (as largest independent shareholders) to ensure take out price is fair.

Management have demonstrated either incompetence or unethical behaviour. From their point of view, however, I'm sure they feel the victims; the market has failed to appreciate fully the companies worth!

[knowsleyman] 19/7/2007 19:18

The Slater Investments announcement was made on the 26th June. Price then just over 70p. Not much chance that they will have acquired that size of holding at a discount to the market.

[cockneyrebel] 19/7/2007 18:43

Mark Slater bought 6% - bet he's only just in profit if he is in profit.

No law against it - legalised mugging.

CR

[cockneyrebel] 19/7/2007 17:41

yes corrientes - the same going on at SPD.

I've had it happen to me with another stock in the past.

New rule for me - never invest in something where one director holds over 30% - he can put too much pressure on the board. This is a farce.

I'm Lawrence, I hold 60% of the shares. I'll form another co and I'll put it to the board (which contains me) that we buy the company back for 65p a share after floating it @ 90p just two years ago. Of course it will be up to the two 'independent' directors to decide whether I get it and they won't be swayed by the fact that their jobs are probably on the line if they don't agree.

CR

[knowsleyman] 19/7/2007 17:37

Slater Investments don't usually get things badly wrong. They have only very recently bought in a large stake and they will have paid well over 65p. Do not think for one minute they would accept the silly indicative price being offered, if it does get offered.
The three comedians still have control of the company but I can not see them getting enough acceptances at that price to force a de-listing, let alone the compulsory purchase level.
For them to succeed the price has to be improved or they will end up in no better position than that which already exists, other than they may control more shares. That is the last thing they want.