Lighthouse Share Discussion Threads

[nigelsom] 24/7/2012 07:21

A successful revolt could see costs reduced substantially: cut back the board, bin one of the brokers, bin the corporate publicity etc etc. Here's hoping for a move from Rosengren.

[graham1ty] 24/7/2012 07:14

One of their complaints is that it is so onerous being a listed company.........presumably that means that it takes up a lot of management time, having Board meetings, seeing shareholders, filling in forms......so if they delist..........they will suddenly have lots of time............so they can cut the cost of the Board from £1m !!!! Like hell

For those who do not look at the accounts......remember this Board is paid over a £1 million, and they complain about the cost of AIM !!!!

Keep the pressure up

[graham1ty] 24/7/2012 07:01

New announcement adds nothing.

It does not address the issue of why the company did not offer shareholders, who want out, an exit. It does not address why the Cos cash cannot be used for that. Now it has been brought to their attention a matched bargain facility is to be put in place.

The speculation (by me certainly) has NOT been that they want to take it private on the sly.

I just want shareholders treated fairly

[nigelsom] 24/7/2012 07:00

Nice to see LGT management are getting worried...



...and I reckon they've plenty to worry about. Lose this vote and jobs are one the line as s/holders flex muscles

[cwa1] 23/7/2012 10:47

Sharesoc comment this am:-



Lighthouse Chairman berates dissenting shareholders



David Hickey, Chairman of Lighthouse Group, the company proposing controversial delisting plans, has labelled dissenting shareholders and critics as "ill informed or ignorant" as quoted in an article on IFAonline. Despite the share price having halved and shareholders being offered no exit, he claimed that "the approach we are taking is the more honourable route".



Shareholder Simon Taylor-Young has objected strongly to this arrogant and patronising comment. He says that shareholders who cannot or do not want to hold unlisted shares have been hung out to dry as the share price halved on the announcement. He condemns a public company Chairman making veiled threats to shareholders when the Chairman said "we could have taken alternative routes without consulting shareholders", and suggests it is ironic that Lighthouse is signed up to the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly initiative (TCF) yet they are treating shareholders so badly.



The comparisons that the Chairman makes are misleading or innaccurate. Mr Hickey says that the share price has fallen over ten years from 75p to 3.5p. The share price on 22 July 2002 was 51.5p. It was 5p prior to their announcement. Secondly, in mid 2002, the number of shares in issue was 22.5m. Since then the Company has issued a further 105.2m shares, mainly dilutive, for example the 43.9 million shares issued at an equivalent of 22.5p in April 2008 for the Sumus acquisition. The Chairman has made a price comparison that is extremely misleading. He has failed to address why the Board has done so little to promote the Company and has allowed there to be such a "heavily discounted share price". The Chairman has stated that "Lighthouse is in good financial shape".



The Company has failed to explain why it cannot offer an alternative to shareholders who do not back the delisting. The Company has boasted of net cash (and no debt) of £11m compared to the market capitalisation prior to the announcement of just £6m, and at current levels £4m. A tender offer by the Company for shares would actually be earnings enhancing and lift net assets per share.



Mr Hickey has commented: "we will keep all the current governance structures in place". However the two current non-Executives "who have particular expertise in quoted companies" will be standing down. Should this be reconsidered as would be more appropriate if the Company wishes to "maintain high standards of corporate governance", is still subject to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers and has said it might in the future be considering offers for the Company.



Mr Taylor-Young urges the Company to withdraw the delisting proposal in its current form. He would like the Company to come back to shareholders with:



- An offer to those shareholders who wish to sell at, or at a slight premium to, the pre-announcement price.

- The provision of a share trading facility after the delisting.

- A statement that, trading circumstances allowing, the dividend will be maintained.

- Continued support for independent shareholders by experienced non-Exec Directors.



ShareSoc continues to urge shareholders to vote against the delisting until the Company can come up with a better structured proposal.

[argy2] 22/7/2012 21:55

Derek pain's reputation is not good so doubt this coverage will have much effect.

[nigelsom] 22/7/2012 17:32

Seems tht Derek Pain (no pain no gain column in today's Indy) is also a raving ignoramous...

[cwa1] 21/7/2012 09:41

In case anyone hasn't seen it:-

[toback] 21/7/2012 06:56

This ill informed (coz they won't talk to me), ignoramus (coz the prat of a chair says it) has voted against. Keep up the good work.

Hope he disappears up his own . . . .

[bisiboy] 20/7/2012 16:58

if these are so cheap why are directors and senior employees not buying?
the cynic in me says there could be bad news coming perhaps the bod would rather announce this off market so it didnt generate a lot of public interest
hope i am wrong on that
i have 160k and am undecided on vote but am leaning towards against. now would be a good time for someone to bid for the company and perhaps break it up unless something is wrong

[cwa1] 20/7/2012 15:54

And a link to the Chairman's comments would be gratefully received too!

Edit. Got it:-

[cwa1] 20/7/2012 15:54

That's great news to hear. Thanks for letting us know. Do you have a link to that detail re the three that are opposed?

I've emailed my broker and can add another 350,000 to the list that are against. Nice to know that it will require over a million on the other side to counterbalance it :-)

Like you I'd urge all opponents of this to hector their broker into voting as soon as possible and if they don't reply give them a reminder by email/phone/whatever.

Nice to see a little momentum building and hoping they don't get away with this scandalous act.

[graham1ty] 20/7/2012 15:51

Has EVERYONE read the comments by the Chairman on IFA online where we are all called "ill informed or ignorant". Patronising ignoramus. Why does he think the shareprice has collapsed. BECAUSE NOONE WANTS THE DELISTING. Everyone read it, everyone comment on that website, everyone vote against

[graham1ty] 20/7/2012 15:34

According to Money Marketing Paul Chase Gardner (5.4%); Cavendish (5%) and Julian Telling (5.1%) are all opposed to the delisting. The Board needs 75% "of votes cast" so to counter these three holdings alone, needs 46%. There are not enough institutional blocks of votes or Director's holdings to do this without a real struggle. EVERY vote against makes it more difficult for the Board. They need three times the shares to vote Yes, for every 1 against, so your 10,000 shares may seem to make no difference, but would take 30,000 on the other side to defeat. This could be really close, so chase your broker, chase the nominees, chase the Reistrars to get your vote cast. And do it as soon as possible as brokers can take 3/4 days to process the admin.

And anyone who can persuade Alan Rosengren, get on the phone......

[nigelsom] 20/7/2012 12:35

Completely agree. But then the stock exchange rules are created to allow the instis full freedom but, ahem, protect PIs from being able to look after themselves.

This delisting proposal is a complete disgrace and IMHO the directors should be ashamed of themselves. As has already been pointed out by TW in his ADVFN column, if the company wants to save cash how about starting with axing all the excessive and duplicating corporate stuff. And as has been pointed out, management moaned about it being difficult to do paper transactions on the basis of such a lowly stock market rating and promptly managed to more-or-less halve it in one easy move.

I'd be delighted to back a putsche - and bin both brokers in the process: what sort of advice have they handed out (that we paid for)?

[cwa1] 20/7/2012 12:08

Indeed, they can vote on your behalf IF you instruct them too. However, Sippdeal, Selftrade and idealing all sent out a release re this situation with the: for information only "instruction" on them. None of them have said there is a vote, it is important and you should vote on it.

Anyone busy, or not au fait with the situation, could easily see the "for information only" and simply ignore it thinking it unimportant. I really feel that crucial matters like these should be issued with "response required" instructions, as most other important company votes are.

[nigelsom] 20/7/2012 11:54

To my knowledge, TD, HB and HL are all able to pass on votes on this. Suspect iDealing would play ball too if asked. Others I dunno...but can always opt for paper shares and turn up to the GM in person just to wipe the smile off a few faces. Maybe the Sat Lottery will give me the firepower!

[cwa1] 20/7/2012 11:48

It really depends on whether the bigger holders meekly go along with this, hopefully not. Also, all the brokers I've heard of aren't even offering their clients a vote on this, just sending a note saying this is what is happening for your information only. A lot of people will probably not even realise they CAN make a difference by voting on this. VERY frustrating.

[nigelsom] 20/7/2012 11:33

Agreed - and anyone doubting whether this can be defeated just need to look at the shareholder register to note that former director Rosengren has 14%



...and a fair few instis around the 5% mark.

As an investment case, just look at the cash in the bank allied to a profitable dividend paying company and the current price is quite a temptation. After all, if it has halved on the prospect of delisting then buying a load to vote against it seems to have a self-fulfilling outcome.

Fingers crossed a decent number of PIs have not yet been scared off.

[graham1ty] 20/7/2012 10:44

The plan must be to get every vote we can against it and force the Board to withdraw the delisting in the current form. If they want to reassess options, there are many: a return of cash to shareholders; a buy out or tender at the pre-announcement price; a sale of the company.

A tender offer at say 6p would really show how many want to hold an unlisted. Given the choice I suspect over 50% would sell out. It is a great pity that those who would sell are not prepared to use their votes and actually block this

[nigelsom] 20/7/2012 06:19

Emailed H-L to try to get my vote against the delisting registered. Lo and behold they're doing it:

"If you wish to give an instruction to vote on behalf of your Shares at the General Meeting then you may give us an instruction by calling our Corporate Actions department on 0117 980 9912 or by sending an email to [e-mail] no later than our deadline of noon on Thursday 26 July 2012."

I've not got alot of these but 10% is enough to block the plan so I reckon every little helps.

GLA