Bartercard Share Discussion Threads

[rjc3] 11/12/2006 13:48

Does anyone have any experience with 'PLUS MARKETS'?

[davidlloyd] 11/12/2006 13:04

Dusseldorf,

Thanks for response.

DL

[dusseldorf] 11/12/2006 12:49

morr21 - firstly, I would wait until this 'special' dividend has been paid before attempting to sell your shares. Then I guess you have to approach the company directly for parties who may be interested in aquiring more stock - I believe this is the only obstacle. A transaction can be effected outside of AIM, though its a little more tricky and will cost a little more, you generally have to have a broker who isn't execution only i.e. offers a few extra services to clients. A buyer willing to purchase your stock is required and your broker and their broker can do the rest

DavidLloyd - your shares will continue to be held by your nominee - there is physical paper work its just that its held by your nominee and not you. Your shares will continue to be listed in your online holding until you are no longer the beneficial owner. Obviously you won't be able to effect an online trade...

If anyone disagrees/knows otherwise please correct me

[davidlloyd] 11/12/2006 10:34

Out of interest, how do we stand with shares that are not in paper form, i.e. in a nominee account? Anything we need to action?

Thanks in advance,

DL

[morr21] 11/12/2006 10:06

Firstly thank you wcjan25 for answering my questions regarding this new era for Bartercard.

One final question to the board, if I wanted to sell my shares or now stake, is that possible????

[aporterman] 08/12/2006 20:19

Scorpionwinger ... fair enough - you may well have been right and you are probably lucky to have lost very little or nothing by adopting your strategy ... but I see no benefit in this tactic:

"3. Stage a mass demonstration in front of the TV cameras at the Stoop against Harlequins' major sponsor to generate some negative publicity
4. Get a decent journalist on to the case both in the UK and Australia with the objective of damaging the company's reputation "


... I for one, do not want to damage this company's reputation ... I am a shareholder ... why would I want to do that ... I believe in the business - I think Sharpe is no angel - but I also think he was shafted to some extent by the city - I still cannot see how he is supposed to have benefitted from all these happenings (apart from his siphoning off consultancy fees - which I hope has ended ) ... to me it looks like almost 2 years have been wasted on ridiculous internal wrangles -

I hope they can now come up with a solution re shareholders status and liquidity - and at least give a decent flow of information to shareholders.

[wcjan25] 08/12/2006 11:14

scorpionwinger

i think i know why you posted back then - someone came on to another board (bfc i think) and started ramping brtr and buy-outs. we had a short set of posts commenting that it looked like a sham... you must have come over here next

your view on what sharpe may be trying to do might be overly pessimistic
however, i think your steps are good ones, especially the times journalist

[james dean] 08/12/2006 08:53

CITYEXPERT

I think from memory when I had shares in Dana Petroleum that Ygen Nap was a poster there with quite a sizeable holding (he may wish to confirm this). However regarding BRTR I have decided to write off my holding at a loss - I don't see Santa bringing any cheer from this company ever!!

DYOR

[scorpionwinger] 08/12/2006 08:35

Aporterman.

I'd forgotten I'd posted so presciently back in 2005.

I would make the following observations:

1. My commentary on any BB tries to be objective, considered, analytically based and unemotional
2. My views generally (but not always) end up correct (at least in the medium term)
3. Fear vs Greed does mean that I also sometimes don't always act rationally in terms of my buy/sell/hold decicions.i.e. I knew BRTR was rotten - I trimmed my holding significantly but kept some in the hope I was wrong to recover the losses already incurred to that point. If I was brutally good, I would have sold everything in 2005 and shorted with complete conviction - that is what separates a savvy private investor from a top hedge fund manager.

[dusseldorf] 08/12/2006 07:46

Ngen Yap - You said 'Bartercard never raised a SINGLE penny from AIM through additional share placing, so effectively, all the shares in the market are the remaining UDI shareholding or less than 10%. Wayne did not sell a single share into the market, so I am not sure why you think he benefited from this deal.'


Barter issued a £550,000 DISCOUNTED by 15% to shareprice convertible loan here, which has all been converted I might add from 14p sold down to 6p I would guess - the co. sold BRTR short effectively:


Bartercard issue £4m convertible loan stock here:


...so in summary you were incorrect

[aporterman] 07/12/2006 22:25

... as I said I am as sick as a parrot ... but I had a quick look back to see if ygen nap is wayne sharpe ... not that it matters to me or anybody else at the moment ... I looked at the first hundred posts or so on this board - but it didn't indicate other than ygen is extremely positive about BRTR ... like myself ... however, I have often wondered about Scorpionwinger - he alwayse seemed to put the boot in ... and I am only around for the past 12 months or so ...and this is the first post I see from him ... who cares anyway - I am only interested in getting BRTR back on the road but this is from 2 years ago so why would any normal person still be here


"scorpionwinger - 20 Oct'05 - 22:45 - 68 of 1354

I am afraid another scumbag small cap taking external shareholders to the cleaners "



Of course ... I suppose I should add ... that maybe he was right, all that time ago ... but I don't think so. Can't figure you out Scorpionwinger.

[scorpionwinger] 07/12/2006 17:30

Guys - don't be naive.

Every spare penny the company makes will be sucked out to Sharpe through service and related party agreements with 100% Sharpe owned third party companies. Ultimately he will sell the assets of the business to a new holding company at a knockdown value and then BRTR will be wound up.

Minority protection - in theory yes, but we are taking here about an Australian company and therefore being forced to sue under Australian company law in an Australian court. Sharpe clearly thinks no private punter has the ability or inclination to bother - there are no meaningful institutional stakes, so nobody with deep pockets to lead the charge. My only suggestion would be to:

1. Set up a shareholder action group
2. Contact the FSA and demand action
3. Stage a mass demonstration in front of the TV cameras at the Stoop against Harlequins' major sponsor to generate some negative publicity
4. Get a decent journalist on to the case both in the UK and Australia with the objective of damaging the company's reputation - how about the Times journalist, Andrew Ellson, that first exposed BRTR's business practices - we should all have been warned!
5. Lob a threatening lawsuit into Shore Capital as the original NOMAD threatening to sue for promoting the company in the first instance

Objective - to get Sharpe to take out the minorities at 10p+ /share

Anyone got the time and desire to lead the charge or will we all give up our money by apathy?

[wcjan25] 07/12/2006 17:05

morr21 -

1.
a) no - not unless the company goes bankrupt, exchanges all its equity for debt etc -- ie. just the same as if it was listed
b) no - you still own the shares.
c) maybe - IF the company declares a dividend, then you will get it. it is not possible for a director for example to pay himself a dividend for each share he holds without also paying you

2. no-one knows that. they cannot FORCE you to sell however unless they pass a threshold of ownership in the company (97%? 98%? can't recall)

3. no - you own just the same % as you did before

there are two key disadvantages to holding shares in a limited co
a. not a liquid market and expensive to trade. you can always sell your shares privately of course. needs a lawyer probably. difficult to assess a fair price
b. lack of information flow. sometimes this is a major issue - for example, if they are planning a dilution. i agree with the statement a few posts back, you should form a minority shareholders group, get hold of and understand the company's Articles of Association, so you can understand the voting rights and so on

hope this helps as a starter for 10

i am a shareholder in a a couple of private companies. one has been the best investment i ever made. the other average.

ps. there is also a notable advantage in being a private company investor - the company is not restricted on information they can give you (or when), so ASK QUESTIONS!

[morr21] 07/12/2006 16:50

RIGHT.

We all feel upset and not very happy, but mud slinging etc wont get us far now.

Simple question time, can anyone help???????

1) if the company goes private, what happens to our shares?

a) do we lose everything?
b) do Bartercard hold them until the business is sold or relisted?
c) do we get dividends?

2) what are chances of Bartercard buying back shares at a certain value.

3) surely our share of the business does not disappear?


Im grateful for anyones help who knows about this.

[yump] 07/12/2006 16:33

Mmmm. Interesting turn of phrase occasionally eg. 'handsome dividends'. Rather Victorian (convict stylie ? ;-)

[kimboy2] 07/12/2006 16:32

Thankfully I don't have a holding in this though I have watched it for some time. I think this may be of some interest;



It may also be an idea to set up a minority shareholders group.

[cityexpert] 07/12/2006 16:22

Someuwin, It is Ygen Nap who I believe is Wayne Sharpe. Just look at his postings since the RTO.

[graphos] 07/12/2006 12:21

The essence of Sharp's reply is this: 'We didn't like being listed, it wasn't to our benefit, we wasted management time with Nabarro – so we've let things go rotten and we'll just go back to being private. Sorry shareholders – you might get something, you might not – it doesn't matter because WE'RE DOING ALL RIGHT, MATE, and the future's bright.'

His use of the phrase 'loyal shareholders' is hugely ironic given the loyalty he's shown to people that made an AIM investment in good faith.

[someuwin] 07/12/2006 11:44

Absolutely criminal!

[sack of spuds] 07/12/2006 11:42

i find it incredible that you can list a company on aim...attract shareholders funds...then delist whether thru a nomad withdrawing, ballsing up the business, deliberately running a business down to buy up the pieces, etc ....or take the business private and apparently no action is taken by the financial authorties.
So directors can trouser loads of cash and escape scott free.
Beats bank robbing everytime!!
pls tell me i am wrong and action will be taken

[aporterman] 07/12/2006 10:44

Think you're mixed up there ... I'm up to my balls in this share ... but I will settle for a share of a private company if that is all I can get ... it is not what I wanted but I have no choice either ... I still think the business will flourish as my research indicated that it is working well on the ground in the UK. I'm not a happy bunny - but I am hoping for the best.

[someuwin] 07/12/2006 10:28

I wonder what's happened to 'aporterman'? Not been seen since CITYEXPERT 'outed' him as Wayne Sharpe. Hmmm - makes you wonder!

[wiganer] 07/12/2006 10:18

Assuming Bartercard's future is as a private limited company, what company law jurisdiction will govern it?

[golf12345] 07/12/2006 10:17

i absolutely agree that that the shareholders have been shafted. mr sharpe and his fellow dorectors are not fit to be directors of any company let alone a publically listed one.

[yump] 06/12/2006 15:01

Actually I find it sickening to hear all the 'great news' when its a near on certainly that I will not benefit from it as a shareholder to any meaningful extent.

Lets be clear.
The share price rot, the boardroom 'trouble' and the extra costs that appeared (NOT the listing and associated costs) had already appeared BEFORE the Nomad resigned.

So having a go at the Nomad (on our behalf) doesn't wash.