Bowleven Share Discussion Threads

[durby] 01/3/2017 07:27

Your money is being well spent?

Can one of KH's rse lickers (Le Com perhaps) ask the company if they paid these two organisations for their views?

[benjimun] 28/2/2017 18:26

Maybe this is all part of a shift to get KH removed a more accomdating CEO in situ who is more inclined to selling Etinde prior to any appraisal drilling. I think if third party is after the Einde asset and COC are the patsy they simply do not want the appraisal wells drilled prior to any bid. I am sure it will all come out in the wash.

[joe say] 28/2/2017 18:06

Wonder if this will all lead to much needed change at the company - certainly hope so!!

[benjimun] 28/2/2017 18:05

tli8jaguar,
Who knows if they are working for anyone but there are very obvious parties and I doubt an outsider would want to get mixed up in it an already complex negotiation.
COC take over etinde will be sold for a song and I am sure there will be lots fo fat fees for the firms involved.

I think that they know that this is a potentially massive deal and they want it for themselves!!

[tli8jaguar] 28/2/2017 17:05

I can see this going to the high court.

It's a well planned asset raid operation first carried out by Credit Suisse, manipulating our share price, rinsing it until they can't get it any lower.(The share price actually went down every time there was good news).

Then passed them on to COC to do the dirty work. All this time the troop of media and social network keyboard warriors are discrediting the BOD. (The Hart discount started right after the Etinde farm out), and the share price went down.

So who are these people actually working for?

[le_commissaire] 28/2/2017 15:31

Cyan

Take a look at something extremely similar with JKX Oil & Gas plc.
A number of Ukranian businessmen led by Igor Kolomoisky had the same "share blocking' treatment by JKX.

The statutes say that the existing controlling BoD can ask repeatedly the same questions up to a 'reasonable' time before the general meeting.
In effect, BLVN can repeat the questioning insisting that any answers are incorrect or more importantly "duplicitous by omission of (believed) significant relationship of third parties".

This is a well known and used but quite legal system of blocking the shares held by an aggressor for voting use. In the case of JKX a judge ruled that they had acted in an underhanded manner but that was overturned by a court of appeal that decided that JKX (important note) had 'acted to protect the interests of all other shareholders in using the articled questions to gain insight into what it believed to be a pre-arranged asset raid".


I have seen this on occasion but i had to consult my own legal team on just what counts as "suspect". The answer is simple, the duty is with the receiver not the sender.

BLVN can literally use this delaying tactic as many times as they see fit using the "protection of all other shareholders". The board do not need any shareholder approval to block any shares no matter how small or large the percentage.

This may look like arrogance to COC supporters and clever manipulation by BoD supporters but to pull it off, the current BoD would need to state their suspicions in short time.

What BLVN could be hitting at somewhat in the dark at this point is whether COC have arranged 'gifts, discounts, options, cash etc to significant shareholders to publically side with them both in voting rights and social media.

One side circus that amuses myself is the dozens of new posters and dormant accounts being used on investor bulletin boards who all seem to post from the same hymm sheet.
They are literally drowning out any BoD supporters and as COC are somewhat small-fry, i wonder if they would stoop to the street.

We will never know !

[cyan] 28/2/2017 14:36

I presume BLVN were trying to ascertain if COC were hand in hand with another?

[ihavenoclue] 28/2/2017 08:11

tli8jaguar
27 Feb '17 - 11:29 - 14855 of 14871 3 0

We've got enough of stranded gas in Etinde already, don't need more from AEX as well.

=================

:)

[ihavenoclue] 28/2/2017 08:09

mark_jm
27 Feb '17 - 17:56 - 14861 of 14870 2 0

question is, is the price rising based on the prospect of COC taking over or the prospect of them not taking over?

=========================

Price is rising as Crown were, and maybe still are, buying. Even if they were not the market would be happier to see KH gone as judging the share to be less than cash value with KH at the helm, turning £20 notes into £5 notes, speaks volumes to me.

The market doesn't trust him to deliver value and hasn't done in years IMHO

Regards
IHNC

[gark] 28/2/2017 07:56

Thanks, I hadn't seen their response.

[pugugly] 28/2/2017 07:53

See link above - They have responded in detail. So should not be possible to ban from voting. They appear to have complied with all the requirements . COC are smart fellows. You can also find out a lot more about them and their operating units from their response.

[gark] 28/2/2017 07:49

If they are building a stake for another party this could prompt a full takeover.

[gark] 28/2/2017 07:48

Also blocks them from voting until they respond.

[iamthedogman] 28/2/2017 07:39

Section 793: Notice by company requiring information about interests in its shares

1113.This section re-enacts section 212(1) to (4) of the 1985 Act. It allows a public company to issue a notice requiring a person it knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, has an interest in its shares (or to have had an interest in the previous three years) to confirm or deny the fact, and, if the former, to disclose certain information about the interest, including information about any other person with an interest in the shares.

1114.Subsections (3) and (4) enable the company to require details to be given of a person’s past or present interests and to provide details of any other interest subsisting in the shares of which he is aware. This provision allows the company to pursue information through a chain of nominees by requiring each in the chain to disclose the person for whom they are acting. Under subsection (6), where the addressee’s interest is a past one, a company can ask for information concerning any person by whom the interest was acquired immediately subsequent to their interest. Particulars may also be required of any share acquisition agreements, or any agreement or arrangement as to how the rights attaching to those shares should be exercised (sections 824 and 825).

1115.This section serves a different purpose to the automatic disclosure obligations currently contained in sections 198 to 211 of Part 6 of the 1985 Act. It enables companies to discover the identity of those with voting rights (direct or indirect) that fall below the thresholds for automatic disclosure, and it also enables companies (and members of the company) to ascertain the underlying beneficial owners of shares.

1116.The notice is not required to be in hard copy (see the general provisions on sending or supplying documents or information in Part 37 of the Bill). Notices, and responses thereto, may be given in electronic form. A response must be given in a reasonable time. What is reasonable has not been defined so as to allow flexibility according to the circumstances, but if the time given is not reasonable, the company will not have served a valid notice.


Sections 824: Interest in shares: agreement to acquire interests in a particular company

1145.This section re-enacts section 204 (as applied by section 212(5)) of the 1985 Act concerning the obligation to give details of certain share acquisition arrangements in response to a notice under section 793. It covers any agreement or arrangement, whether or not legally binding, which involves undertakings, expectations or understandings that interests in shares will be acquired and that they will be subject to relevant restrictions while the agreement subsists. This may include groups of persons acting in concert to prepare the way for a takeover offer for the company or to support a pending takeover offer.

[pugugly] 28/2/2017 07:38

Interesting - Shows build up of COC holdings

[cyman] 28/2/2017 00:13

No need for that guns. I have always been respectful toward you and other posters.

[gunsofmarscapone] 27/2/2017 23:57

Not really cemen

The share price tells its own story.

[cyman] 27/2/2017 22:52

I am not aware of a single reason in favour of coc but as you can see the support they seem to have on this bb is quite big. Seems like kh will be out of blvn and that probably means 19p is around the corner

[mark_jm] 27/2/2017 17:56

question is, is the price rising based on the prospect of COC taking over or the prospect of them not taking over? Did any one else note that IC's Simon Thompson has recommended against COC due to lack of independent directors on the proposed new Board.

Is anyone aware of a good case study in favour of trusting COC?

[cyan] 27/2/2017 16:58

Looks like we are heading to 40p ahead of the vote.

Price suggests , to me, that everyone expects KH to go.

[fft] 27/2/2017 16:04

You do realise that that is not tw ? The original post is a subject of a complaint by the real tw to the FCA. More details on the shareprophet website.

[garrymorrow] 27/2/2017 15:55

Text removed by garrymorrow

[brileyloucan] 27/2/2017 13:45

Vote submitted for all resolutions (with COC) except for No.3 which I voted against. Thought it might be useful to keep Billy Allen around to ensure governance is up to scratch.

Wish I was up in EDI that date as would be interesting to so to the meeting.

BL