Octagonal Share Discussion Threads

[festario] 09/11/2021 11:30

Check the other board out.... a bit more discussion there?I think it should be kept to one.

[landay] 09/11/2021 11:22

Very grateful to Herald.

I have never understood why more shareolders did not vote against the delisting.

[festario] 08/11/2021 21:16

I have six figures to lose here, if the value is stolen from shareholders.In effect, it already is stolen from shareholders, because of Gunn's complete contempt for us all.Therefore I expect we will need to take action, and I'm quite prepared to throw a few more thousand quid in, in order to wrestle back some of my investment from the odious Gunn.

[heraldomaha] 08/11/2021 18:55

@bedbel

It was a real eye opener speaking to John.

I have also not given up on my investments, which are in my ISA & SIPP. For me it is not just the value pre-delist, but the compound tax free (at least for the ISA) future value.

It deserves to be robustly challenged, and we will see where we can get to without spending money on solicitors & barristers!

[bedbel] 08/11/2021 18:36

Thank you Herald. So there is nothing happened in the last 3 months?

I had conversations with John Gunn around the time of the delisting. He denied to know about the Sec filing before delisting but that is probably a lie.
On the other hand I can understand that he did not wish to go to trial as a public company. He did promise me to invite the minority shareholders after the SEC investigation was closed but he did not expect that before Q3.
I don't know if the recent settlement means the communication will start again. Hopefully it does, otherwise we have to take some action.
Fwiw, I never had the feeling that my investment is lost. I still think there is value, although as I said before the details of the settlement are important.
I am still expecting a dividend of 0,1 pence in the next months.
Maybe I am too optimistic. I own 2,3%.

[langland] 08/11/2021 18:25

Herald,

Thank you very much for this initiative.

[heraldomaha] 08/11/2021 17:38

@Bedbel - No problem.

Antony Binnie Contact = 24th March 2021
Octagonal offer to buy Shares @ £0.01 (via In house Council) = 26th March 2021
Formal Complaint to Octagonal Plc(via In house Council) = 29th March 2021
Video Conference Call with John Gunn et al. = 8th June 2021
Formal Complaint to FCA (Ref Number: 437558) = 8th June 2021
1st Response from FCA (Ref Number: 437558) = 9th June 2021
Follow up from FCA (Ref Number: 437558) = 9th June 2021
Request from FCA to agree to escalation to supervisory team (Ref Number: 437558) = 11th June 2021
Follow up from FCA (Ref Number: 437558) = 14th June 2021
Follow up from FCA (Ref Number: 437558) = 28th June 2021
Formal Complaint to AIM (Marcus Stuttard) = 29th June 2021 (Recommended by FCA)
Follow up from FCA (Ref Number: 437558) = 13th July 2021
Follow up from AIM = 28th July 2021

[bedbel] 08/11/2021 16:03

Thank you Herald for the interesting info.
Could you specify the timeline, when you made the formal complaint and when you had the video call?
Are you a major shareholder?(don't answer if you don't want to)

[dave4545] 08/11/2021 15:17

Yeah 2.2p seems fair and allows us to move on.

But pigs might fly too

[truckle1] 08/11/2021 14:51

Insightful knowledge - many thanks.

[heraldomaha] 08/11/2021 14:25

@Festario - Re Blog, I meant this thread.

Now I have found this community is active, I will remain engaged.

[heraldomaha] 08/11/2021 14:25

@Festario - Re Blog, I meant this thread.

Now I have found this community is active, I will remain engaged.

[festario] 08/11/2021 14:07

Just read that superb information on the other thread, where is this blog please? I want to join.

[festario] 08/11/2021 14:06

That's superb information, and confirms what I have always suspected about Gunn.I'd like to subscribe to that blog, can you let us know where it is pleas?

[heraldomaha] 08/11/2021 14:06

I have just found this blog relating to Octagonal Limited (formerly Octagonal Plc), and thought I would share the engagement I had with Management and Regulators relating to the de-listing.

I have made a formal (Whistle Blower) complaint to AIM and FCA, which is currently being investigated (FCA Ref Number 48633).

After de-list from AIM, I contacted Anthony Binnie ([e-mail])(Independent Non-Exec) on LinkedIn to ask about the minority interests representation leading to de-list. This led to in-house council (Melissa Needham ) making a 1p offer on behalf of 'another shareholder', I assumed to be John Gunn.

FCA advised that I must make a formal complaint to the company and allow 8 weeks for a reply first, which I did so.

I complained to in-house council that the de-list and 1p Offer were a market manipulation, failing to protect the minority shareholder interests. Just prior to 8 weeks from original complaint, I had a video conference call with John Gunn ([e-mail]), Nilesh Jagatia (CFO) ([e-mail]), Melissa Needham, and Antony Binnie to address my claims.

During the conference call John Gunn contradicted himself several times.

I asked why a fair tender offer for minority shareholders was not made at the point of announcing the de-list, to which John claimed they needed to retain funds for SCC Claim. I reminded him the SCC Claim was not announced until after the de-list, and the reason stated for the de-list was because the company no longer required outside funds.

I asked John whether SCC Claim was known about at time of de-list, to which he asked the in-house council who declined to comment. I asked that surely if the SCC Claim came after de-list, which was because company has sufficient capital, they should have postponed de-list until after SCC Complaint was resolved.

I asked John if top 5 shareholders and insiders (representing 78.27% of votes) had been engaged with prior to de-list, to which he asked the in-house council who declined to comment. Again, had minority shareholders been adequately represented by the vote to de-list, if a majority had already been achieved through private engagement.

After the video call, I contacted the FCA ([e-mail]), who acknowledged my claim, which is currently being reviewed.

I made the complaint against Global Investment Strategy UK Ltd (Ref Number 437558), within the parent company, Octagonal Plc, as this is an FCA Regulated company. As Global Investment Strategy UK Ltd, a subsidiary of Octagonal PLC, operate as a trade within the Financial Services Industry, the Directors and controlling shareholders would have been fully aware of the price impact of making an announcement to de-list without making a tender offer to repurchase shares at current fair value.

The SCC Complaint was originally made via the FCA, and thus I assume this must be settled first before the FCA can fully respond to my Whistleblowing Complaint.

I will withdraw my FCA complaint if Octagonal Limited made a tender offer of £0.022 (closing share price day before de-list announcement) to buy out the minority shareholders.

[heraldomaha] 08/11/2021 14:01

I have just found this blog relating to Octagonal Limited (formerly Octagonal Plc), and thought I would share the engagement I had with Management and Regulators relating to the de-listing.

I have made a formal (Whistle Blower) complaint to AIM and FCA, which is currently being investigated (FCA Ref Number 48633).

After de-list from AIM, I contacted Anthony Binnie ([e-mail])(Independent Non-Exec) on LinkedIn to ask about the minority interests representation leading to de-list. This led to in-house council (Melissa Needham ) making a 1p offer on behalf of 'another shareholder', I assumed to be John Gunn.

FCA advised that I must make a formal complaint to the company and allow 8 weeks for a reply first, which I did so.

I complained to in-house council that the de-list and 1p Offer were a market manipulation, failing to protect the minority shareholder interests. Just prior to 8 weeks from original complaint, I had a video conference call with John Gunn ([e-mail]), Nilesh Jagatia (CFO) ([e-mail]), Melissa Needham, and Antony Binnie to address my claims.

During the conference call John Gunn contradicted himself several times.

I asked why a fair tender offer for minority shareholders was not made at the point of announcing the de-list, to which John claimed they needed to retain funds for SCC Claim. I reminded him the SCC Claim was not announced until after the de-list, and the reason stated for the de-list was because the company no longer required outside funds.

I asked John whether SCC Claim was known about at time of de-list, to which he asked the in-house council who declined to comment. I asked that surely if the SCC Claim came after de-list, which was because company has sufficient capital, they should have postponed de-list until after SCC Complaint was resolved.

I asked John if top 5 shareholders and insiders (representing 78.27% of votes) had been engaged with prior to de-list, to which he asked the in-house council who declined to comment. Again, had minority shareholders been adequately represented by the vote to de-list, if a majority had already been achieved through private engagement.

After the video call, I contacted the FCA ([e-mail]), who acknowledged my claim, which is currently being reviewed.

I made the complaint against Global Investment Strategy UK Ltd (Ref Number 437558), within the parent company, Octagonal Plc, as this is an FCA Regulated company. As Global Investment Strategy UK Ltd, a subsidiary of Octagonal PLC, operate as a trade within the Financial Services Industry, the Directors and controlling shareholders would have been fully aware of the price impact of making an announcement to de-list without making a tender offer to repurchase shares at current fair value.

The SCC Complaint was originally made via the FCA, and thus I assume this must be settled first before the FCA can fully respond to my Whistleblowing Complaint.

I will withdraw my FCA complaint if Octagonal Limited made a tender offer of £0.022 (closing share price day before de-list announcement) to buy out the minority shareholders.

[ochs] 29/10/2021 08:27

Thanks substp - a 'settlement in principle' sounds promising.

However the latest on 27 Oct says "ORDER granting Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The request is granted. The conference is adjourned from November 4, 2021 to September 9, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. SO ORDERED. Initial Conference set for 9/9/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein."

Seems strange to adjourn to 9 Sept 2022 if there is already a settlement in principle? Any thoughts?

[29palms] 28/10/2021 20:10

Only through a “matched bargain” basis that was stated back before “delistingR21;

Still waiting for the Modern Day Outlaw to sanction this.

Not holding my breath…
He has more Teflon than Madoff ever had.

[festario] 28/10/2021 20:06

No, the two issues are not related.He's stolen the company from the minority shareholders.He was on trial for crooked business practices.

[dave4545] 28/10/2021 19:51

Unbelievable

Can the shares not return to trading then ?

[29palms] 28/10/2021 19:40

27th October:
Order on Motion to Adjourn Conference Wed 10/27 1:52 PM
Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference.
The request is granted.
The conference is adjourned from November 4, 2021 to September 9, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

So “off the hook” until Sept 2022

[dave4545] 28/10/2021 07:42

You have no hope T

You just are stuck in a permanent doom and gloom mood, right on a lot of stocks though I'll give you that.

I think Gunn might just buy out the remaining shares so he does not have to bring this back and have the company back all for himself.

You never know he just might offer a fair price 2p perhaps which is still cheap but probably 1p

[terminator101] 27/10/2021 18:36

Its the hope that kills you, not the despair.