We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shoe Zone Plc | LSE:SHOE | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BLTVCF91 | ORD 1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 225.00 | 220.00 | 230.00 | 225.00 | 225.00 | 225.00 | 62,929 | 08:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Footwear-wholesale | 165.66M | 13.22M | 0.2860 | 7.87 | 104.01M |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
21/7/2021 18:31 | EM, that took you long enough to respond after I asked you twice FFS, FFS! Probably because the code is over 400 pages long, but of course you know it all. Not working for Zeus I presume? I see your first post on this thread was only last week. STILL NO EVIDENCE THAT IN THIS CASE THE SMITH'S HAVE ACTUALLY CONSULTED THE PANEL OR ACTUALLY RECEIVED ANY WAIVER!!! That's what I was looking for and would expect to be in the public domain if any such waiver has been granted. | bountyhunter | |
21/7/2021 18:21 | bountyhunter Rule 9 waiver. Like I said, read the takeover code FFS... "RULE 9 CONTINUED NOTES ON RULE 9.1 continued their advisers, should consult the Panel before acquiring an interest in any shares which might lead to the incurring of an obligation under this Rule. (See also Note 5 on the definition of acting in concert.) 4. Acquisition of interests in shares by members of a group acting in concert While the Panel accepts that the concept of persons acting in concert recognises a group as being the equivalent of a single person, the membership of such groups may change at any time. This being the case, there will be circumstances when the acquisition of an interest in shares by one member of a group acting in concert from another member will result in the acquirer of the interest in shares having an obligation to make an offer. Whenever a group acting in concert is interested in shares which together carry 30% or more of the voting rights in a company and as a result of an acquisition of an interest in shares from another member of the group a single member comes to be interested in shares carrying 30% or more or, if already interested in shares carrying over 30%, acquires an interest in any other shares carrying voting rights, the factors which the Panel will take into account in considering whether to waive the obligation to make an offer include: (a) whether the leader of the group or the member with the largest individual interest in shares has changed and whether the balance between the interests in the group has changed significantly; (b) the price paid for the interest in shares acquired; and (c) the relationship between the persons acting in concert and how long they have been acting in concert. When the group is interested in shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights in a company but does not hold shares carrying more than 50% of such voting rights, an offer obligation will arise if an interest in any other shares carrying voting rights is acquired from non-members of the group. When the group holds shares carrying over 50% of the voting rights in a company, no obligations normally arise from acquisitions by any member of the group. However, subject to considerations similar to those set out in the previous paragraph, the Panel may regard as giving rise to an obligation to make an offer the acquisition by a single member of the group of an interest in shares sufficient to increase the shares carrying voting rights in which the member of the group is interested to 30% or more or, if the member of the group is already interested in 30% or more, which increases the percentage of shares carrying voting rights in which the member of the group is interested." | eezymunny | |
21/7/2021 18:05 | Blimey another new hybrid store. Thats 69 of these now selling high value shoes also. I thought they were doing so many of these. Clearly they are working big time. | thecroots | |
19/7/2021 16:26 | You seem to be the only one! I'll make it eezy for you, read this... "A 'concert party' is a group of people acting in concert in a takeover bid. In the UK, there are rules for such bids, regulated by regulators such as the Takeover Panel. There is a 30% threshold at which a mandatory offer must be made. This is considered to be reached when a concert party jointly hold 30% of the shares in a company, not when one of them does. The same applies to other financial instrument holdings such as derivatives. Some entities are presumed to be acting in concert unless shown otherwise. These include the directors, subsidiaries, associate companies and the parent company of the bidder." Anthony Smith's (CEO) interest in the Company has increased to 14,926,557 Ordinary Shares, representing 29.85% Charles Smith's (Chairman) interest in the Company has increased to 11,933,694 Ordinary Shares, representing 23.87% Charles Smith and Anthony Smith's aggregated shareholding has therefore increased to 26,860,251 Ordinary Shares, representing 53.72% So EM why are the Smith's exempt? If you believe they have some kind of exemption please supply a link to such an exemption to add some credibility to your suggestion rather than just making patronising remarks. I notice you ignored my initial request for any evidence of this. | bountyhunter | |
19/7/2021 11:34 | Stop fretting about a takeover on here. Go and read the takeover code...most of you clearly haven´t! | eezymunny | |
19/7/2021 11:23 | Thanks simmsc It looks undervalued to me, but it all depends how much of a multiple you're prepared to give them for future profitability - ditto yield - and it's tough to gauge. At least the Pennington-Smiths have a lot of skin in the game and would presumably want to get back to a good level of divi??? Historically (2019), this is yielding almost 17% at 68p :-) I've no position currently. | boystown | |
19/7/2021 11:02 | Assuming they have been 'in concert' for a long time and have been obliged to offer to purchase the company during this time but haven't, what options do they have now I wonder? | chinahere | |
19/7/2021 00:10 | Just had a look. No broker forecasts that i can find. Re takeover ... I'm guessing they have already had a nudge from the regulators. Hence the addition of Zeus. | simmsc | |
18/7/2021 17:10 | Does anyone have broker forecasts for this year / next (including the divi if applicable? | boystown | |
18/7/2021 16:08 | As above re a usual takeover with 90% being when an offer would be declared unconditional. Where have you seen that concert parties may be granted an exemption from the 30% rule? That's new to me, do you have a link? As far as I can see concert parties are not exempt from the 30% rule and I have not seen anything to indicate that the Smith's have been granted an exemption, if so I would expect to have seen an RNS. "A 'concert party' is a group of people acting in concert in a takeover bid. In the UK, there are rules for such bids, regulated by regulators such as the Takeover Panel. There is a 30% threshold at which a mandatory offer must be made. This is considered to be reached when a concert party jointly hold 30% of the shares in a company, not when one of them does. The same applies to other financial instrument holdings such as derivatives. Some entities are presumed to be acting in concert unless shown otherwise. These include the directors, subsidiaries, associate companies and the parent company of the bidder." | bountyhunter | |
18/7/2021 12:37 | In a simple takeover you can keep your shares unless buyer gets over 90% in which case they can optionally force you to sell... | eezymunny | |
18/7/2021 12:37 | Concert parties can be granted exemptions to the 30% rule... | eezymunny | |
18/7/2021 08:08 | Yes true but a 'scheme of arrangement' at 75%+ is an alternative to the mandatory 90% threshold following a takeover bid (or management buyout). A bid can only be made at a price within the rules governing takeover bids as discussed earlier. All rather complicated. What I don't get is how the Smith's can hold 54% between them without having to make a bid? I can only assume that they do not consider themselves to be connected!? Anthony Smith's (CEO) interest in the Company has increased to 14,926,557 Ordinary Shares, representing 29.85% Charles Smith's (Chairman) interest in the Company has increased to 11,933,694 Ordinary Shares, representing 23.87% Charles Smith and Anthony Smith's aggregated shareholding has therefore increased to 26,860,251 Ordinary Shares, representing 53.72%. Takeover code on 99% and 75% thresholds: 1. Contractual takeover offers and schemes of arrangement Public takeovers in the UK are implemented by either a contractual takeover offer or a scheme of arrangement. Under a contractual takeover offer, the bidder makes a general offer to all target shareholders. Shareholders are sent an offer document containing information on the bid and the bidder. The bidder must secure acceptances over shares representing more than 50% of the target’s voting share capital to declare the offer unconditional. Acceptances over shares representing 90% of the target’s voting share capital are required to squeeze out the minority (and thereby enable the bidder to acquire all of the target's voting share capital). Given that bidders typically aspire to acquire 100% of the voting rights in a target company, it is therefore usual for the acceptance condition to be set at 90% (rather than 50%), but for the bidder to have the option to reduce this threshold to shares carrying over 50% of the voting rights. A scheme of arrangement is a statutory mechanism which is an alternative to a contractual offer. It is a formal arrangement between the target company and its shareholders, which is governed by the Companies Act 2006. A scheme of arrangement must be approved both by the shareholders of the target company and the High Court. In particular, a scheme of arrangement requires approval from shareholders who constitute a majority in number of each class of shareholders who are subject to the scheme of arrangement and who are voting at the meeting. This majority must also represent at least 75% in number of those shares which are voted. The main advantage of a scheme of arrangement is that, if successful, it will bind all shareholders (regardless of whether, or in what way, they voted). However, due to the High Court’s involvement, schemes of arrangement are less flexible structures than contractual takeover offers. | bountyhunter | |
18/7/2021 06:54 | A scheme of arrangement, where shareholders are FORCED to sell requires 75% vote. A simple takeover requires only 50% but holders are NOT forced to sell. FYI | eezymunny | |
17/7/2021 13:27 | Nail on the head there! The Last 12 Months Of Insider Transactions At Shoe Zone "In the last twelve months, the biggest single purchase by an insider was when CEO & Executive Director Anthony Edward Smith bought UK£721k worth of shares at a price of UK£0.80 per share. That means that even when the share price was higher than UK£0.70 (the recent price), an insider wanted to purchase shares. While their view may have changed since the purchase was made, this does at least suggest they have had confidence in the company's future. To us, it's very important to consider the price insiders pay for shares. It is generally more encouraging if they paid above the current price, as it suggests they saw value, even at higher levels. In the last twelve months Shoe Zone insiders were buying shares, but not selling." | bountyhunter | |
14/7/2021 17:52 | As they have already paid up to 80p in the last 12 months they would I believe have to pay at least that for the remainder in a buyout in which case the current price makes no difference. | bountyhunter | |
14/7/2021 12:56 | In reality if the share price keeps rising it makes it more difficult for the smith family to take it back into private ownership. When is the next trading update | leicesterboy | |
14/7/2021 11:23 | Buys catching up sells and the price remains down by 3.5p! | bountyhunter | |
14/7/2021 11:18 | Yes exactly, and the current 54% is way off 75% | bountyhunter | |
14/7/2021 11:07 | As far as I understand the Takeover Code a bare minimum is the highest they paid for shares in the 12 months beforehand. So 81p. I also believe that the offer would have to get to 75% of shareholders accepting it for it to go ahead. So 21% more than their holdings. Don't quote me though - that Takeover Code is one long document! | chinahere | |
14/7/2021 09:56 | It's not about what the Smith's would accept it's about what other holders would be willing to sell out for. e.g. 12 June 2020: Zeus Capital advises on £22.6m Moss Bros take private "This deal is the fifth that Zeus Capital has completed since the UK lockdown commenced, and also represents the fourth completed takeover code transaction that Zeus Capital has advised on in the last 12 months." At a 61% premium. | bountyhunter | |
14/7/2021 07:46 | Independent Directors & NOMAD I guess... G. | garth | |
14/7/2021 07:45 | So how would this work if the Smiths own a majority share and decide to take the company private, in a normal takeover usually a premium is payed but if they have the majority share can they accept a fair market price | pottsypotts | |
14/7/2021 05:39 | Oh dear, that's unfortunate. Perhaps worth considering moving to a another part of the country? | glavey |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions