Encore Oil Share Discussion Threads

[n3tleylucas] 20/11/2011 10:18

I'll show you ... numpty! LOL
3 certificates in front of me nose ...
Cert No. 0003149, 0003151, 0003161 ... Company Code, HWDM Class A ... 2 bought on XPLU, the other XLO ... stick that in yer briar pipe & smoke it yer 6 word posting fool ... tsk!

[wbodger] 20/11/2011 10:12

They won't get 90% on 12/12. If they do get 75% and ask for permission to delist they will keep the offer open until January 13 (anyway, perhaps longer).

btw nigel, I'm not feeding anything, I'm interested in what others have to say. Put everyone on ignore if you want, that's a great strategy.

[n3tleylucas] 20/11/2011 10:09

nigelpm,
? wtf! ... I'm a flippin' EO paper holder bud ... are you as daft as the rest on 'ere? ... ffs!

[nigelpm] 20/11/2011 10:04

don't feed the trolls - filter them.

[n3tleylucas] 20/11/2011 09:20

Wbodger,
Wrong ... if we reject the offer, and PMO get 90% ... we get cash

[wbodger] 20/11/2011 09:08

They will be required to keep the offer open. You won't have to take cash unless you want to.

[n3tleylucas] 20/11/2011 08:21

Steve,
The default setting is cash mate, not paper. So if you reject the offer, and PMO gain the legally required 90%, you will get cash. I am going to leave it to the very end, if the best offer is paper, I'll go paper.

[steve73] 20/11/2011 05:19

Quick question.

If I vote to reject the offer, but it goes ahead anyway, do I then get the choice to take cash or PMO paper?

Or do I need to make that decision at the same time as rejecting?

[n3tleylucas] 20/11/2011 00:59

guesswhosback,
True,(I'm right) but unlike you, I don't suck ROFL!!!

[n3tleylucas] 19/11/2011 23:44

Wbodger,
What court? LOL ... don't believe the garbage these guys post ... flippin' schemes and court and meetings and votes ... have you read me posts? ... it's accept or not ... here
75% wins
90% game over
simple ... if you don't like the offer DON'T ACCEPT ... all the rest is b/s ...
and if they don't get the numbers, they'll extend it ... but the clock runs out eventually ... LOL ... and then where's yer scheme, court, meet, vote? LOL ... it's pure b/s mate ... the % is all that matters ... and I'm right ... they are wrong ... and so wrong it's frankly worrying ROFL!!!

[wbodger] 19/11/2011 21:39

Someone elsewhere suggested Encore might have trouble dealing with TAQA if the latter knew EO were strapped for cash, and could hold out for an even better deal. OTOH Encore now officially know what was presumably a secret between TAQA and PMO, and so do Wintershall. Encore's 16.6% of Cladhan would give Wintershall 50.1% (although not Operatorship). They must be tempted by that and 50% of Coaster for as little as £33 million.

If you plan to challenge in Court, a strategy like that might be persuasive. The court might at least slow down the steamroller.

[n3tleylucas] 19/11/2011 20:48

uncommon13,
TAQA have no deal with PMO atm, the 'deal' only happens if PMO win. TAQA can do what they like ... LOL ... and so can anyone else ...

[uncommon13] 19/11/2011 20:38

Hi Mark,

Thanks. Yes, the TAQA deal which Premier has extracted for some of Encore's assets seems to suggest there is much greater value in there than Premier's 70p cash offer or opting for Premier shares. I think a number of Encore shareholders are now wondering if they should now reject Premier's deal. Even if Encore shareholders manage to reject the deal, I think Premier would most likely increase it considering Premier won't be stretched as it will be selling on the non-core asset of Caldhan and farming out Coaster? If Premier doesn't increase it, would Encore shareholders still be better off with more bang for buck if TAQA's deal still stands on the table as Encore would now have the cash and farm-in to exploit most of its assets in the near term?

I was going to opt for Premier's shares before they announced the TAQA deal since Premier's shares do look undervalued compared to their core value but now with TAQA's deal, I am seriously considering rejecting the Premier deal and seeing what happens.

Does the statement: "Premier's agreement with TAQA prohibits TAQA from competing against Premier for the acquisition of EnCore or any of EnCore's assets or interests." mean if Premier's acquisition of EO fails and Premier walks away, do you think the TAQA deal would still be there for EO to exploit? Also, does it mean any counterbidder (not TAQA) could bid knowing they could talk to TAQA afterwards regarding EO's Caldhan and Coaster? In addition, exciting results of Tudor Rose may swing it too as RBCRBC mentions if it comes before the vote..

[marben100] 19/11/2011 16:58

One more thing about the court sanction...

IMO if a significant number (say, a couple of hundred) smaller shareholders voted against the scheme, the court might refuse to sanction it, even though their votes only represented a small number of shares compared to those held by institutions.

Unfortunately IME, with the current nominee system, it's very hard to get that sort of number to get off their backsides and actually vote. That's why if anyone feels strongly that they want to defeat this T/O, they need to act fast to gather and motivate support.

The clock is ticking to 12th December (8th December for proxy votes).

[thegreatgeraldo] 19/11/2011 13:22

Ramptastic....

[marben100] 19/11/2011 12:24

RBCRBC - you are right, in principle. Court sanction is required and, theoretically isn't automatic. I do not know whether, in the circumstances you describe, the Court is or isn't likely to sanction the scheme. So far, I haven't come across any instances where sanction hasn't been obtained following approval by shareholders (but that doesn't necessarily mean that there haven't been any!).

Worth noting, however, that the standard language on p1 of the Scheme document (after the TOC) says:

"It is important that, for the Court Meeting in particular, as many votes as possible are cast so that the Court may be satisfied that there is a fair representation of shareholder opinion. Whether or not you plan to attend the Shareholder Meetings, you are therefore strongly encouraged to sign and return your Forms of Proxy in accordance with the instructions thereon, or to appoint a proxy electronically, as soon as possible..."

I take that to mean that the main criterion for Court sanction, if the requisite 75% majority is reached, is that the votes cast are representative of the shareholder body as a whole.

You would need a proper legal opinion to know whether the Court would take account of REASONS for voting against (as you suggest), or whether it's simply a numbers game.

Cheers,

Mark

[marben100] 19/11/2011 12:07

Thanks repo. And I can confirm that you're a man who stands his round too, and a highly decent bloke. :0) I think readers can reach their own judgements on what is and isn't true from the content (or lack thereof ;0)) in the posts. As ever, readers should DTOR.

Another important distinction to note between a Scheme of Arrangement and a conventional T/O is as follows. In a conventional T/O at least 50% of shareholders must ACTIVELY accept the offer for the bidder to gain control (and generally at least that number for the offer to become unconditional). Even at that point, you're not forced to sell your shares. It takes 90% control by the bidder to force you to sell - but delisting is likely to occur before that, so it's generally unwise to hang on. OTOH in a Scheme it only reqires 75% of THOSE SHARES THAT VOTE for the bid to succeed (subject to court sanction). For example, if 50% of the shares in issue are voted, it only takes a vote of 37.5% in favour (12.5% actively voted against) for the scheme to pass and the complete T/O to succeed.

If you don't vote (or can't vote because your broker/nominee won't let you) you have no say in the matter.

Mark

[rbcrbc] 19/11/2011 11:49

Of course, I am not saying that the Scheme will or will not be approved. That will depend on the outcome of the vote.


I believe (from memories of a previous similar scheme, but have not checked the details) that the outcome of the court meeting is not soley dependant on the vote but also on the approval of the court, the court can (I believe) listen to the concerns of shareholders and refuse to sanction the scheme if there is good reason (even if the 75% threshold is met).

So in the theoretical case of TR results not being know by the court meeting date it would be possible for a single shareholder to standup and point out the potential company changing information due soon and the court might not approve the scheme even if >75% have been cast in favour. This might also be the case if, for example, (good) TR results are know very shortly before the meeting but votes cast in advance of the knowledge might exceed the 75% threshold.

I am not sure if the court could simply adjourn for (say) 2 weeks and (maybe) force a re-vote pending a TR result, or if they have to make a simple yes/no decision at the meeting.

As I say this is from memory and might be wrong - I dont intend to check until much nearer the meeting and then only if either TR results are not know a few days before the meeting (to allow time for votes to be amended) or TR results are good and the scheme isn't cancelled.

TR was spudded on 17/11 and expected to take approx 20 days so a result expected on or around 7th Dec. - It could be close !

[n3tleylucas] 19/11/2011 11:45

sg31,
Moi idiot? LOL ... no mate ... it's kind of the other way around bud ... how many more dimwits are in here ... crikey! LOL ...

[n3tleylucas] 19/11/2011 11:43

lanaken,
I'm sure he's a great bloke, and a diligent investor ... too diligent imo ... I just slash through the b/s ... he's like a bureaucrat ... endless rubbish ... waste of space ... LOL
75% win
90% game over
So simple ... even you can understand ... all the rest is b/s ... LOL

[sg31] 19/11/2011 11:34

My filtered list just got longer. Life is too short to waste it reading posts by idiots.

[lanaken] 19/11/2011 11:27

N3tleyLucas

I've met marben and he is a good bloke and a very able and diligent investor.

You're filtered.

repo