Bowleven Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 14/3/2017 22:19

May be ok with one director. I have no idea. That's maybe why at least one remains no matter what the vote. It's all a bit speculative best to wait and see what happens tomorrow. Probably not at all clandestine.

[warbaby43] 14/3/2017 22:10

I did for a while speculate as to whether the delayed RNS might have been down to a mixed result - eg Ashworth and Chahin being rejected and with several of the existed being BoD being ejected - and post EGM negotiations going on between the parties.

However, if that were the case then I'm pretty sure that the COC lads would not have been able to spend half an hour chatting to loglorry1 and having re-read his account of that conversation I do not get the impression that they were in any frazzled. loglorry1, though, will no doubt correct me if I have drawn the wrong impression.

What is certain, though, is that if there isn't a 7 am RNS, summat's going on.

[nicobellic] 14/3/2017 22:08

Log Are you saying that the number of directors required by AIM is over and above that required by the Companies Act 2006? If so, where is this stated?Companies Act 2006 simply requires 1 natural person. However, blvn's articles might require more (although from memory I don't believe so).

[durby] 14/3/2017 20:45

Are they fighting till the last minute to hang on to the gravy train?

[ihavenoclue] 14/3/2017 20:26

Yes we should know by tomorrow morning one way or the other

[acv74] 14/3/2017 20:24

Their lawyers....that the shareholders are paying for

[loglorry1] 14/3/2017 20:00

@ivenoclue in that case they would stay. I agree a complicated situation could arise if they removed all but one director but failed to appoint the other teo. In that case the LSE might suspend due to lack of a board. That situ seems unlikely.

I think the delay is probably down to the BoD trying to wiggle out of the result and working on that with their lawyers. We should know more tomorrow.

[ihavenoclue] 14/3/2017 19:53

The thing that complicates matters is that the resolutions were not clear cut, I.e. Remove current board, but individual in nature so what happens when some of the current board members don't get a large enough % to remove them?

[fatnacker] 14/3/2017 19:49

I don't think board changes create a false market nor does speculation of board changes, I'm sure there'll be an rns at 0700 though

[pugugly] 14/3/2017 19:29

fatnacker:> imo because shareholders know that a General Meeting was called to remove directors and replace with others - AND the Company has failed to update the market of the result/

If you or any others can advise why this is not a fair interpretion of the spirit (if not the exact wording) of the rules then please advise.

There may be specific rules to cover this type of event but as yet I have been unable to find.

[cyan] 14/3/2017 18:44

I suspect we will have a comprehensive RNS at 7am .

[thegreatgeraldo] 14/3/2017 18:38

Maybe KH & co are focussed on the Balance Sheet, dealing with the inventory in the boardroom drinks cabinet.

[kimboy2] 14/3/2017 18:34

If KH had won we would have heard by now.

[iamthedogman] 14/3/2017 18:07

Everybody chill out, think of England and cheer on the foxes tonight in the champions

league......some things are far more important than being just a misguided Man U

supporter........

[fatnacker] 14/3/2017 17:56

why would it be a false market pugugly?

[slipanchor3] 14/3/2017 17:53

If it is taking lawyers this long to put an RNS together we are going to need one to decipher it.

[pugugly] 14/3/2017 17:44

No rns yet So (imo) there must be an rns with the results or shares suspended before the market opens tomorrow - If not (imo) a false market declared and shares should be suspended by the Exchange.

Any experts out there who can advise if my interpretation of the regulations is correct ?

[warbaby43] 14/3/2017 17:26

Mixed result and an almighty mess now favourite?

[ulvers] 14/3/2017 17:10

Spent the afternoon watching Cheltenham, now he can get round to writing the rns perhaps?

GLA

[gunsofmarscapone] 14/3/2017 17:07

Maybe Kev has had a wobbly?

[lancasterbomber] 14/3/2017 17:03

Well if anyone had any doubts about getting rid of the bod this fiasco should convince them. Why are the SHAREHOLDERS of this company still in the dark about what is happening to THEIR company 8 hours after the start of the EGM. They have created a false market in the shares today

[gunsofmarscapone] 14/3/2017 17:00

Or maybe those are alternative facts. To be honest I am so glad to only have 30% of my largest hold here; if there is one priority consideration in AIM puntvestment it would have to be the the quality and integrity of the board.

If daft old Kev and the other bloaters had only agreed a 40-50% paycut then the vote could have been more assured.

Instead, the hubris, arrogance and collective delusion have placed this whole project at significant risk.

[cyman] 14/3/2017 16:59

ihavenoclue

I do not think that rns's are charged by usage - each company signs up to the system and is provided with passwords that grant them access to post the rns direct. it is then their responsibility to ensure that the wording is correct and liability for false misleading or incorrect info lies with the company - the fees related to an rns would be legal fees to ensure that it is correctly drafted and meets the criteria and rules and in teh case of price sensitive rns's then you would also have the accountants climbing over them too - on the whole I believe there is only an annual subscrption for the access and if you want you can shoot off an rns each day - indeed I know a couple of bod's that do and I like that because it gives the impression that they give a F about their shareholders

[ihavenoclue] 14/3/2017 16:51

Someone on LSE said they had called the company and the information would be released today

[warbaby43] 14/3/2017 16:44

With regard to lawyers in attendance and COC being prepared, that's also what indaknow over at iii was reporting in a couple of his posts on the meeting:

"There weren't that many people present. I didn't see any of the blvn directors other than Dave Clarkson, Kev and Billy. There were around 15 people who I assume were shareholders and COC and their lawyers (3 x COC and 2 lawyers"

And:

"If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd expect an 'irregularity' to be announced! COC's lawyers had their Butterworth's guide to the Companies Act 2006 with them marked up ready for any challenge."

Though I suspect indaknow might have been guessing at what pages were bearing flags.