British Energy Share Discussion Threads

[martin036] 07/10/2004 13:37

Level2 looking great on the buy side with 2143976 v 67500@ 15.75

[davestewart] 07/10/2004 13:27

Press Release Source: Brandes Investment Partners LLC


Brandes Comments on British Energy Situation Post-Settlement Between Creditors and Polygon
Wednesday October 6, 3:35 pm ET


SAN DIEGO, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Brandes Investment Partners LLC ("Brandes") has reviewed recent developments relating to the settlement between creditors of British Energy plc ("the Company") and Polygon Investment Partners LLP ("Polygon"). Brandes acts as fund manager for clients who in aggregate own approximately 6.5% of the ordinary share capital of the Company. Brandes appreciates Polygon's initiatives on behalf of shareholders and, in light of actions taken by the Company and its creditors to make it more difficult and expensive for shareholders to exercise their rights, understands Polygon's decision to discontinue its efforts.
Brandes continues to believe that shareholders should be afforded an opportunity to vote on fundamental issues of corporate governance, including major corporate reorganizations. On behalf of its clients, Brandes supported Polygon's proposal to requisition an Extraordinary General Meeting (the "EGM") because Brandes agrees that the terms of the Company's proposed restructuring, including the proposal to de-list the Company's shares without a shareholder vote, are fundamentally unfair.

Brandes also believes that the actions recently proposed by the Company, which are intended to frustrate the purpose of the EGM, are hostile to shareholder interests. Based on advice of UK legal counsel, Brandes understands that the Company's actions, if implemented, may give rise to a claim that the Company's affairs are being conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to shareholders. However, in view of the costs and risks of pursuing such a claim, Brandes has determined that it is not in the interests of its clients to pursue the matter further. In addition, given the practical realities of the current situation, Brandes is willing to consider lending support to a proposal to cancel, or adjourn indefinitely, the EGM. However, Brandes is not bound by any course of action and will continue to monitor events so that it may take appropriate steps to promote the legitimate interests of its clients.

Brandes Investment Partners, LLC is a U.S. registered investment adviser. Located in San Diego, Brandes managed in excess of $85 billion on behalf of institutional and individual investors, as of September 30, 2004.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Brandes Investment Partners LLC

[pc4900074200] 07/10/2004 12:51

As it stands, only nine days to do it in!

pc

159 trades: 24 buys. [ADVFN figures].

[keepitup] 07/10/2004 12:49

This stock should hit 20p+ again soon...

[sylvesterokojie111] 07/10/2004 12:42

Something must be up. G S buying etc. Can someone in the know spill the beans pls!!!

[exile] 07/10/2004 12:25

LEVEL2.... 1. 2,000,000 14.75 15.00 631,5003 3.


2 million?

If I had any cash I would buy more.

[chelle] 07/10/2004 08:07

E-mail all the papers, if polygon cannot do it, gawd help the rest of us. Depends how hard they tried and what the deal was to back off.

[davestewart] 06/10/2004 23:43

2.5% + offered warrants @ company value on disgraceful & poxy £83 m = 28p. You work it out. This is before the next wholesale electric pre-buy. So, where the hell do they get 14p from?

[davestewart] 06/10/2004 23:34

Get the f@cking lot de-listed, on the 21st. Shareholders have lost. Big time. Sooner the better. Basically, write off your cap investment, until re-listing, which, SHOULD be Jan\Feb 2005. One can hit the grey market in between times if you so wish. Hovering around 15p (6 Ocober.) It will be multiples thereof on a sorted out and re-listed BGY. It is that easy and straightforward

Anyone see any problem with that statement?

[davestewart] 06/10/2004 23:20

today, was yet another focus on the pension shortfall. This is going to be a monster coming home to roost quite shortly. In the meantime, this Blessed Govt has covered up not one, but several major pension fiascos. Hell's Bell's, Prudential collapse was the flavour of last year. The reason, why BGY may not come into this is for one it was a privatasation, in the main, it was a delayed pension but built into ISA's. I could go on a great length on this.

[snogger] 06/10/2004 23:18

the gordon brown stuff is still here though.

If you lot dont hear from me tommorrow. MI5 have been around. Not that funny really

night night

[snogger] 06/10/2004 23:14

Thats my point Dave. And this is very interesting problem. I dont think they (the journos) understand how much the government have stuffed the small shareholders by manipulating the price of energy and more to the point using the company's weakness to get a fantastic cash flow on a very small investrment that they have control by dropping the price of electricity putting the major supplier in a very difficult position and the gettint 65% of the free cash flow going forward. very long sentence but you'll get my drift.

[snogger] 06/10/2004 22:55

I bet this gets deleted.

If I asked Gordon Brown to confirm that he had never inevested in a film fund what do you think the answer would be?

Answers on a post card to Tony Blair, 10 Downing Street etc

[snogger] 06/10/2004 22:52

Time to go home but before doing so I just have to have a go.

Why is it that there is not a single (labour or tory) newspaper prepared to have a look at this problem. Answer they cant work it out

[davestewart] 06/10/2004 22:49

soul_trade

I care not less. If anything it is that you are quite fluent and exceptional in *ignorant*. Going back on your posts, you have that clearly off to a fine art. You don't understand anything about BGY Politics\Economics.......and know even less

[snogger] 06/10/2004 22:37

Dave here is a reply from BGY to a set of questions I posted on their web site. Its interesting. I for one don't want de-listing. Are you mad?

This is how they (our company) responded.


Thank you for your questions, via our web site, which we attempt to answer below.

If the company were to go into administration would the bondholders receive more than the face value of their bonds?

We are not in administration and cannot speculate about this situation.

My comment on this answer. Reaqd above. "WE ARE NOT IN ADMIN ETC"

Why is it that the creditors (supported by the company) have threatened individual shareholders with legal action if they vote against the restructuring , an action they never voted for in the first place?

This is an issue for creditors and we cannot answer on their behalf.

"READ ABOVE SHAREHOLDERS"

Would the company support an class action by the small shareholders against the restructure?

The Board is committed to implementing the Agreed Restructuring. We are working hard to ensure that we complete the restructuring successfully, which will allow shareholders to have a stake in the restructured British Energy, and enable the company to focus on providing the UK with safe, reliable electricity, for the future.

"READ THIS REPLY VERY CAREFULLY"

[moneypm] 06/10/2004 22:25

looks like Brandes have given up the fight as well :

SAN DIEGO, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Brandes Investment Partners LLC
("Brandes") has reviewed recent developments relating to the settlement
between creditors of British Energy plc ("the Company") and Polygon Investment
Partners LLP ("Polygon"). Brandes acts as fund manager for clients who in
aggregate own approximately 6.5% of the ordinary share capital of the Company.
Brandes appreciates Polygon's initiatives on behalf of shareholders and, in
light of actions taken by the Company and its creditors to make it more
difficult and expensive for shareholders to exercise their rights, understands
Polygon's decision to discontinue its efforts.

Brandes continues to believe that shareholders should be afforded an
opportunity to vote on fundamental issues of corporate governance, including
major corporate reorganizations. On behalf of its clients, Brandes supported
Polygon's proposal to requisition an Extraordinary General Meeting (the "EGM")
because Brandes agrees that the terms of the Company's proposed restructuring,
including the proposal to de-list the Company's shares without a shareholder
vote, are fundamentally unfair.

Brandes also believes that the actions recently proposed by the Company,
which are intended to frustrate the purpose of the EGM, are hostile to
shareholder interests. Based on advice of UK legal counsel, Brandes
understands that the Company's actions, if implemented, may give rise to a
claim that the Company's affairs are being conducted in a manner unfairly
prejudicial to shareholders. However, in view of the costs and risks of
pursuing such a claim, Brandes has determined that it is not in the interests
of its clients to pursue the matter further. In addition, given the practical
realities of the current situation, Brandes is willing to consider lending
support to a proposal to cancel, or adjourn indefinitely, the EGM. However,
Brandes is not bound by any course of action and will continue to monitor
events so that it may take appropriate steps to promote the legitimate
interests of its clients.

Brandes Investment Partners, LLC is a U.S. registered investment adviser.
Located in San Diego, Brandes managed in excess of $85 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors, as of September 30, 2004.

[davestewart] 06/10/2004 22:22

and where the hell have you sprung from, giving me grief, some days back, you non-person?

[soul_trade] 06/10/2004 22:17

the more fuss we (shareholders) make about this situation and let FSA know about all the anomalities in this case like these, the more likely it will decide against delisting, so i suggest we do that, after all if we have time and we are the most interested party in this, why should we sit quiet?

[snogger] 06/10/2004 22:07

These are answers from British Energy to questions I have posted


|Question If the company were to go into administration would the bondholders receive more than the face value of their bonds?

Answer We are not in administration and cannot speculate about this situation.

Quetion Why is it that the creditors (supported by the company) have threatened individual shareholders with legal action if they vote against the restructuring , an action they never voted for in the first place?

Answer .This is an issue for creditors and we cannot answer on their behalf.



What do u you lot think?

This is after they have said that creditors will sue


They have said that they are not in administration. Therefore why are we (the shareholdrs not participating

Should I send the answrs to the FSA?