Eg Solutions Share Discussion Threads

[pawnseven] 14/7/2004 23:03

Does this have any relevance to our case - does anybody know?


Freezing Injunction
If your opponent is about to get rid of valuable property or money, so that you cannot make a claim against them, you can apply to the court to stop them. This is called a "Freezing Injunction".
An application is made in the High Court for the injunction. (In family cases an application can be made in the County Court, but the court can decide to transfer it to the High Court.)

You can ask the court to make an emergency order preventing your opponent transferring, getting rid of or passing the property to someone else and for them to reveal where they have got rid of any property or money.

However, you have to give a promise to the court that you will pay your opponent's costs if you eventually lose your case or if there was not a good reason for asking the court to give the injunction.

Copies of the injunction can be sent to your opponent's bank or building society to stop your opponent getting rid of his property or money. However, your opponent will be allowed to withdraw money for his or her living expenses.

Also known as a Mareva injunction.


Maybe we should just go ahead ourselves and apply to the courts to stop Energis for operating! pawnseven

[eurofox] 14/7/2004 22:10

ARX going down the drain!

[simeon7] 14/7/2004 21:31

LoL!

Just like the good ol' days.

Give em hell bully!

[babhere] 14/7/2004 12:25

Just what is your problem Bully? If we annoy you so much then don't read the thread!

[bullishbuyer] 12/7/2004 08:07

Shut it.

Bully

[htrocka] 09/7/2004 18:40

couldn`t help but notice Colt`s share price dropping out of the sky of late...on the back of a`profits warning`...and how many bb posters seem to find consolation in slagging Energis on the way down....blaming the sensative reaction to the sudden drop in price as a Legacy of Energis debacle....Energis may well be `dead` to it`s shareholders...but it`s memory is alive and kicking within the city market making fratenity.........who undoubtedly still carry the scars of burnt fingers to prove it....The speed of the collapse in Colt`s share price....was frightening....infering that the alternative telco sector....has become very sensative to `bad` news.....and this is a company that has some £800m cash in the bank.

[gerry2] 08/7/2004 22:19

Had a Bad Day Then ?
Now that's what I call a novel bovine way of expressing oneself .

Or was that a party political post on behalf of the canine Energis holders .
LOL

[truckertee] 07/7/2004 11:09

Why don't you sue him then? Or do you think it's as clear as day that you don't have a case.

[htrocka] 04/7/2004 18:47

It`s always been a curios point why National Grid never sold a `worthless` asset, ie, the line network to one of Energis` competitors...yet decided to hang onto,maintain and never pulled the plug on this `worthless`asset....that obviosly must have some form of book price as this is the very life line of Energis..(where as Transco sold it`s loss making fibre optic company for £1).. without these lines Energis would be dead...therefore inference implies that as both creditor and shareholder, between Natioanal Grid and Energis.... some form of clandestine agreement exists... However the bottom line is....and this is the `straw that broke the camels back`...was this agreement reached as a creditor or as a shareholder...if the former then a conflict of interest existed...if the latter then as a shareholder.. where is our `piece of the action`... it`s a catch 22 situation,unless National Grid can come up with answers...their on a hiding to nothing....and `yes` an agreement between NNG and EGS is in place...and the more I ponder this situation leads me to the conclusion that to stay within the law,,,the `deal` could only be made under the mantle of creditor...this implies that we were never truly represented as shareholders.....hence a review of the administration order should be made.Judicial transfere of ownership requires shareholder approval.This means that National Grid wore two hats, on the one hand voted in favour of the transfere of ownership on behalllf of the majority of Energis shareholders...and the other to maintain the line business.Should they argue the point that this was, from NGG`s point of view, a profitable side of the Energis business then this implies that they had their own NGG shareholders intersts at heart,,,should they argue the point that the lines were losing money...then they were acting as creditors, No one solely represented the Energis shareholder...I certainly wasn`t invited.The whole episode is a bit of a sham.

[htrocka] 03/7/2004 09:56

...having read the above articles, a point that both of you seemed to have missed is that the demise and problems that Energis created for themselves began when they purchased SION for some £600m. Prior to this disaster, the company were well on their way to a £2.4bn valuation. The Sion saga has now revealed that the company bought an illegaly over-priced `dog`and lawyers are in the process of declaring the whole episode as knull and void with the return of the cash. The point being that prior to the purchase of Sion, Energis were on the up-and-up, going from strenght to strenght(and recommended by many brokers).Putting the Sion `problem` to one side, they are in a better position now than before said purchase.Just take a look at COLT for instance,at their hight..£40 a share...today, heading for 40p......and this is without administration and after a 60p a share rights issue.With all of Energis` problems I`d say this company was in better shape than Colt.If the Sion saga, that I believe is now going through some judicial process, is resolved in favour of Energis.....then the company can be `re-valued` for floatation purposes. Energis has had greater problems than companies such as Atlantic Telecom and Ionica, to name but two...who have since gone to the wall...........and EGS is still here,... in this `jungle`, only the strongest survive. My personal opinion is that a true valuation of Energis cannot be made until the outcome of the Sion ruling.

[finmac] 03/7/2004 00:34

JakNife
Good Morning to you,

What complete tosh FINMAC, the biggest shareholder was National Grid and they walked away from their stake. They walked away FINMAC (So says Jaknife)

Is it not true Jaknife that the National Grid still carries Energis (or should I say Chelys)traffic on its pylons. Is it not true Jacknife that Chelys are paying N.G. for that service.
Regards
Finmac

[pawnseven] 02/7/2004 21:55

Jaknife

Sorry it should have read as below - I've edited the original but no doubt you'll have an explanation for this too.

It was only insolvent because of the accounting rules used - it had cash of around £15m and debtors owing some £150m - yet the judge said it was insolvent. Had he never heard of factoring?

This comapny could always pay its way - that is the whole point! The administration was only a way of taking control of the company - ask the RBS they know.

regards pawnseven

[bullishbuyer] 30/6/2004 13:48

I've said that all along Haystack. Why do they keep on and on and......?

Makes me smile to watch the silly so and so's.

Let's hope none of them are businessmen!

Bully