William Ransom Share Discussion Threads

[playful] 14/2/2011 15:50

Very reassuring to see PG continues to buy.

[deswalker] 14/2/2011 15:30

PG adds another 900k or so. Now at 8.61%

[playful] 13/2/2011 22:50

We have until 16:30 on Tuesday to buy... (I was going to say "fill our boots boys" but thought it somewhat crude)

[playful] 10/2/2011 13:53

I don't think the 150K is our usual buyer, so we might have some competition for available stock now.

[playful] 10/2/2011 11:12

Looks like more buying from the william ransom employees today.

[deswalker] 04/2/2011 11:07

Thks kramch. I feel more comfortable following Ran's "and that's what matters" comment. Please keep a record of what was said/emailed and when.

I agree that one reason for feeling slightly more comfortable about holding into the delisting is that there appears to be a ceiling on the holding of the CP at not much more than their current holdings. If they were deemed to be acting independently then having a further 30% to have a go at between them would have been a real concern as then all sorts of offers could be afforded to larger shareholders to get them to sell which were not then offered elsewhere, and then before one knows it one holds a genuine minority stake which to all intents and purposes is worthless.

Thks again.

[kramch] 04/2/2011 10:56

DW I can only give you my understanding of it; I was concerned after the meeting that FW had implied that he acted independently of SQ. This may have been because the questioner asked about the recent "directors" share purchases). Ran has said to me that the Panel regard them as connected parties "and that's what matters".

Practically, if they were to increase their holdings and argue they were no longer connected I think they would upset a lot of people who have supported them.

I am OK with staying invested in a delisted company with a minority big shareholder but would be a lot less happy with a majority shareholder. K.

[deswalker] 04/2/2011 09:43

kramch

Sorry to bang on about this but I just want to clarify how things stand.

1) From what I gather, during the meeting it came to light that FW and SQ had either a) checked with the T/O Panel that they weren't a Concert Party or b) checked with their lawyers that they weren't a CP or c) were simply supposing this to be the case. Do you know or get the impression which is the case ?

2) Do you think Ran contacted the Panel following the meeting because FW and SQ realised that they were unsure of their position and needed to check ?

3) Can we rest assured that FW, SQ and everyone else are now singing from the same hymn sheet believing that they are connected and that the information given at the EGM was wrong ? Or could it be that the CEO continues to believe one thing and the FD and Investor Relations contact is telling shareholders the complete opposite ?

Apologies once again for banging on but as I'm sure you agree it is important that people such as FW, Ran and the Takeover Panel don't make factually incorrect statements without realising that they are accountable for them.

Thanks for any answers

Des

[kramch] 04/2/2011 09:25

I think Ran is right. But FW and SQ could still buy, trigger a bid and make an low offer and see what they could pick up. However a) If they were going to do this I would have thought they would have done it and avoided the de-listing costs etc and b) it would upset the other bigger shareholders who have presumably pledged their support on the basis that FW and SQ do not take voting control. K.

[deswalker] 03/2/2011 16:43

kramch - so who do we believe FW & SQ or Ran ? A very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Concert Parties should be disclosed as part of AIM Rule 26 compliance IMO. That way everyone is clear about the situation.

I've just made this precise point on TMF and garnered a grand total of 2 recs from the idiots over there who rec any old rubbish IMO.

[kramch] 03/2/2011 15:37

Further to my post 793 on 27/1 "I was surprised that when we questioned FW about his and SQ's recent share purchases he said that he and SQ were not connected parties, which was contrary to my (and I think most peoples') understanding."

I took this up with Ran a couple of days ago, who confirmed that the take-over panel regard them as connected, and as RNSM are remaining a plc, they would have to bid for the whole company if they exceed 30% between them.

Interesting that the share price is rising now the delisting has been put back. I know our chairman wants to buy a few and maybe PG is continuing to add. Tends to confirm that the situation isn't as black as has been painted. K.

[playful] 03/2/2011 12:34

You have to suspect the small purchases we're seeing are the staff raiding their savings to buy into the business, on perhaps management's suggestion?

We are the biggest mover on the LSE today how funny is that?

[playful] 02/2/2011 14:47

Funny old business, wonder what's the reason behind the adjournment until 15 February.

[grahamty] 28/1/2011 13:42

Anyone else seen the Holland & Barrett ads ? Half price sale and all that. And guess what ? The products shown..............are almost all Dr O !!! Good placement Fred. Pity it is not products from yr quoted company

[kramch] 27/1/2011 17:03

enviro - they had quite a grilling from the assembled PI's, but yes it was a walk over, DS made sure they had the big shareholders in the bag.

We got an undertaking to maintain the investor web page with a link to the JP Jenkins site to see the activity and deal prices and a statement from FW that "they intend to keep shareholders informed".

We were told they are looking for a non-exec with industry-experience, and they do not intend to merge with Dr O.

It was encouraging to see Aviva actually attend and vote at the meeting.

I was surprised that when we questioned FW about his and SQ's recent share purchases he said that he and SQ were not connected parties, which was contrary to my (and I think most peoples') understanding.

The last day for dealing on AIM is Thurs 3rd Feb.

grahamty - I suppose that from Fri 4th, if you are registered with JP Jenkins you can buy \ sell at 2.5p or whatever the mid-price will be, and not have the AIM market makers' 0.5p, (20%) spread. So buyers may think they can pick them up cheaper. It will be interesting to see which way the share price actually moves once delisted. K.

[grahamty] 27/1/2011 11:02

Even with the delisting and flood of stock at 2.32p ( that seems the best bid for small sellers) is it suprising that someone is not hoovering up this stock ? If those who have had the nod and the wink believe in the turnaround, is this not dirt cheap at 2.5p, for anyone prepared to sit on an unquoted ? PG for example ? presumably he paid 3-3.5p originally ? Why not top up at 2.5p ?

[envirovision] 18/1/2011 12:51

Well i am shocked how easy it was for them, considering the noise some were making here.

Sorry its had to end like this.

Does anyone know the final date before its de-listed ?

[abc125] 17/1/2011 20:55

It looks like a done deal unfortunately. Sold my remaining few friday. It looks like PG came on board late in the day to provide liquidity for those wanting out at 2.5p.

[deswalker] 14/1/2011 14:04

David's most recent list of shareholders here amounts to 4,755,000 I think.

Assuming everyone on here excl David voted against the Court Meeting then there was only 595k more shares on our side and not disclosed here !!

Assuming everyone on here incl David voted against the General Meeting then there was only 553k more shares on our side and not disclosed here !!

So much for the silent holders stepping up to the plate.

[playful] 14/1/2011 13:56

The Chairman doesn't hold any shares so why would anyone give him their votes?

"Any proxy appointments which gave discretion to the Chairman have been included in the shares 'FOR' total;"

Can we find out how many he voted?

[deswalker] 14/1/2011 13:47

I'm confused. I was wrong in my earlier post.

Firstly there were 6.67 mill more shares voted at the General Meeting over the Court Meeting. That's 7.9% of the company !! Why would somebody vote in one but not the other to that degree ?

Secondly, 6.26 mill more shares voted in favour at the General Meeting than at the Court Meeting when I would have thought it would be the other way round if anything !! Very strange.

Thirdly, only 408k more shares voted against at the General Meeting than at the Court Meeting which is basically David I would have thought.

Fourthly, not all of FW, SQ, Aviva, TD, IH and PG can have voted in favour at the Court Meeting as they hold too many shares between them. But it is just possible that all these voted in favour at the General Meeting !!

Heaven knows what's gone on here but it looks like a total mess to me.

Whatever has happened we have to hope that all parties have received assurances about the conduct of the others at these meetings.

I very much look forward to any reports.

[playful] 14/1/2011 13:32

I feel certain the major holders were very reluctant supporters and will be watching Fred very closely, as will we all.

[playful] 14/1/2011 13:18

Well we did get 25% of all shareholders voting against if that's any consolation, just not 25% of the total vote.