Biofuels Share Discussion Threads

[esrimeur] 01/8/2007 19:46

Well, vested interests usually win.

The diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil. That did not suit the oil barons. So they funded the mass production of petrol-fuelled vehicles.

A diesel engine runs better on sunflower oil than on DERV, for several thousand miles (although illegally in UK & Eire), but I recommend putting two full tanks of disel & 3/4 bottles of diesel Redex through it every 8k miles or so.

[stegrego] 01/8/2007 19:31

RIP

To think it went out at 2.2p - thats exactly 100 times less than i got for mine!

[nfranks] 31/7/2007 22:50

Murillo - cheers for that, very informative. If the oil price stays high, the US B99 loophole is closed, feedstock prices stabilise and the UK RFTO actually works £60m+ is not out of the question. Probably to many ifs, buts and maybes for most folks though.

[murillo] 31/7/2007 22:33

Section 428 et seq. of the Companies Act 1985 provides that someone who has (1) made a takeover offer for all the shares of another company and (2) acquired 90% or more thereof may in certain circumstances buy out the other 10% compulsorily on the same terms. This does not apply here. Barclays (or rather its subsidiary) has not made an offer for "all the shares", but instead taken a lot of shares in consideration of writing off a lot of debt.

Further, the shares acquired by Barclays are not in Biofuels Corporation, the quoted PLC ("BFC", soon to be the unquoted private company Earls Nook Limited) but in the erstwhile subsidiary Biofuels Corporation Trading Limited ("Trading"). Even if the outstanding 6% of Trading were to be acquired by Barclays, this would not take out shareholders in BFC, but BFC itself.

Post-restructuring, Trading will still have net liabilities of c. £20m. The assets would have to be sold for £60m+ (very unlikely) to generate any return for BFC, let alone the shareholders thereof.

[esmerelda] 31/7/2007 19:56

I couldn't agree more with what you say nfranks. In my experience most sensible posters would have followed up such categorical statements such as a compulsory purchase WILL occur (my emphasis) with a few examples of where this has happened. I can't think of any but I can think of examples where this hasn't taken place, eg Eurotunnel.

[nfranks] 31/7/2007 19:16

PO - I'm all for informed debate to aid the learning experience. I'll even admit you called the D4E correctly as others did, but your arrogance leaves a little bit to be desired. Posting with 100% certainty that a compulsory purchase will occur (it might) but when someone dares to question that assumption and that is may not be the only possibility (wasn't just me), rather than debate the issue sensibly you play the "I was correct on the D4E therefore I'm 100% correct on the compulsory purchase issue". Well I'm very sorry for doubting your brilliance, you've obviously never got anything wrong or made a bad investment decision. Unfortunately I don't really know you from Adam so ain't going to believe everything you post.

I'm not going to resort to petty comments, wish you illwill or misfortune but rather just agree to disagree with your somewhat conceited attitude.

A few definitions to save you looking them up
arrogance : offensive display of superiority or self-importance
concieted : having an excessively favorable opinion of one's abilities

[surfer2] 31/7/2007 18:57

is it worth a new investor buying at these lows?
will the company stay listed and survive or be taken private?
commiserations to those still holding thnx

[pierre oreilly] 31/7/2007 18:01

n, yes I don't know what I'm on about, I make it all up as I go along. It's just that a d4e happened just as I said it would for the reasons I gave, and the minority buyout will happen just as I said it will, for the reasons I gave. But yep, I know nothing, and you, while admitting you know nothing which is obvious to all, choose to try to ridicule, for reasons I don't understand. Also, remember I've lost nothing here, yet you have probably lost your shirt, except for the cuff, which I hope I had some influence on you saving. On second thoughts, it's a pity if i did.

[bobsa] 31/7/2007 17:29

Wow, you should all retire Good work guys

[seatrader] 31/7/2007 16:14

Got 3.1p for mine!!!!

[hubs] 31/7/2007 16:06

final sharp intake of breath...then rest in peace

[hercy] 31/7/2007 15:22

likely to be shorts closing thats all.

[seatrader] 31/7/2007 15:07

Up 47% and raising! Barclays have gone mad to get your shares.

[fludde] 31/7/2007 14:30

"Pierre Oreilly - 31 Jul'07 - 13:06 - 37177 of 37179

Eh? Non comprendi."

Yep you said it! You are making it up as you go along.
You make 100% certain statements about the rights of companies to buy remaining shareholdings out but refuse to answer any questions pertaining to those statements.

There is no point asking you for information as you clearly have none.

[seatrader] 31/7/2007 14:16

Now up 41% and rising!

[nfranks] 31/7/2007 13:41

PO Why ask me?

Because one of the reason for a BB is the exchange of information and ideas, learning from those more experienced and educating those perhaps less experienced.

Obviously you need to learn from those who actually know rather than those who think they know!!!!!!!!!

Why not do some research for yourself?
Save me the trouble.

[pierre oreilly] 31/7/2007 13:06

Can you explain why Barclays did not take 100% of the company in a D4E

because a d4e swaps debt for a new issue of shares sufficient to give the new owner complete control, and isn't concrened with existing shares. The new owner then has a right to buy up all the minority shareholdings anyway due to their status of holding >90% of the shares.

Without such a d4e arrangement and total control, BFC would be put into liquidation and worth nothing.

save themselves the bother of 'buying' back the shares they have effectively given to the remaining PI's?

Eh? Non comprendi. They haven't given existing holders anything!

Why ask me? Why not do some research for yourself? There must be masses of stuff on debt-for-equity swaps on the net.

[seatrader] 31/7/2007 12:52

Going back up again, now 24%, enjoy the ride

[fludde] 31/7/2007 11:53

Pierre Really?

Can you explain why Barclays did not take 100% of the company in a D4E deal and save themselves the bother of 'buying' back the shares they have effectively given to the remaining PI's?

[geng] 31/7/2007 11:46

They are going to delist on Thursday! The share price will be 0p !

Sell now while you still have a chance.

[seatrader] 31/7/2007 11:40

WOW up 32% now, Barclays buying everything!

[seatrader] 31/7/2007 10:59

With all these buys maybe Barclays are hooving up, prior to the 2nd August.