VSA Capital Share Discussion Threads

[blackbear] 18/4/2013 12:10

No reason to sell, brokers will still hold your shares in your account. heck even my SIPP is ok with it going off AIM.

I'm betting on the monk and if anyone can tell me how I can buy more at less than 1p let me know. TIA.

[moreforus] 18/4/2013 11:56

if you hold then you are lucky as Mr Monk is going to offer a "fairer" matched book trading system for VSA shares



"We will provide a matched bargain facility for share trading through our registrars Capita," he said. "That will be order-driven rather than quote-driven by market makers so it should be a fairer price."

[johnspain] 18/4/2013 11:54

don't hold your breath, on either a recount or compensation.
if I held now, I'd keep them on the off chance that either there was a recount or a rumor of one created a spike to get out.
certainly won't buy on the basis there might be.

[joe say] 18/4/2013 11:50

And how would someone like myself get compensated if it does go to a re-vote as I dumped as soon as the news came out ?

[pugg1ey] 18/4/2013 11:40

can they do spuds to decide?

[moreforus] 18/4/2013 11:36

looks like they put Robert Mugabe in charge of counting the votes

[monkey puzzle] 18/4/2013 11:36

So TOPS might get a get of jail card here in the end if the vote is declared invalid.......I wonder if anyone could force VSA to go through another vote or whether the result stands regardless of what's been discovered since?

[solarno lopez] 18/4/2013 11:28

They forgot they held the shares in nominee holdings

[moreforus] 18/4/2013 11:27

they didnt all vote?

[davidosh] 18/4/2013 11:27

The KeepVSAlisted website showed 16.85% of the company were against the delisting. That would equate to almost exactly 9 million shares. The voting on the day shows just 6.5m voting against so there is a huge discrepancy there and one wonders what happened to those NO votes ??

If there had been 9 million cast against plus a number that had not registered with the website then the delisting motion would have been smashed as over 30% would have been more than enough.

[lw425] 18/4/2013 10:13

Best of three?

[tez123] 18/4/2013 09:26

Recount?

VSA Capital Group delisting – some most peculiar events
Posted by ShareSoc at 15:54, April 17 2013.
VSA Capital Group delisting – some most peculiar events

On the 28th March, VSA Capital Group announced a proposed delisting from AIM, with a vote to be taken on the 17th April (today). That was of course immediately before the Easter bank holiday, making it somewhat difficult for shareholders, particularly those in nominee accounts, to get their votes in on time. And so it turned out to be.

A number of shareholders opposed the delisting, led by Nick Brown who set up a web site to co-ordinate support – see www.keepvsalisted.co.uk . Whether the board has a justifiable case for delisting is not something I propose to cover here. Shareholders can read the information on that web site and that issued by the company to decide for themselves. But the subsequent events give ShareSoc grave concerns.

Only a few people turned up at the General Meeting (some having to attend because otherwise their proxy votes would not apparently have been received in time). Major shareholder John McCartney asked if the board had consulted any of their major shareholders before putting the delisting proposal forward. They said they had but he had not apparently been consulted although he claimed to be the third largest shareholder.

The final outcome of the vote was a narrow majority in favour of delisting – 77.6% FOR, and 22.4% AGAINST when 75% was required. But David Stredder (D.S.) who attended the meeting as a shareholder with a "letter of representation" from Pershing (using by his broker Dowgate as the custodian, i.e. nominee operator) was told by the Registrars (Capita) that some of his claimed shares could not be voted. How can that be? Either Pershing have allocated shares to D.S. which they do not have title to (i.e. that exceed those held on the register of the company), or they have lent the stock out without his knowledge.

In fact there were other shareholders who also held their shares via Pershing and so there is an even bigger shortfall than may have been immediately obvious (because D.S. could have otherwise voted those as being in the pool held by Pershing assuming these are pooled nominee accounts operated by Pershing as they usually are). In addition the Registrar said that some of the proxy forms in respect of the other holdings were not received in time from Pershing so could not be counted. About 4% of votes received by Capita were apparently disallowed.

This demonstrates exactly the evils of the nominee system. It's simply a mess at present. It is incomprehensible as to what should happen and there is no audit trail of votes cast. Nobody can be certain their votes are going to be recorded, and have been cast, if they hold them via a nominee account. The delisting of VSA would have been defeated if shareholders in nominee accounts had a reliable voting system.

Shareholders are reminded not to hold their shares in nominee accounts unless they absolutely have to do so, and in that case they need to very careful about who they use if they wish to ensure their votes are cast.

Join ShareSoc and help us put a stop to this iniquitous system.

[poombear] 17/4/2013 21:15

All sounds a bit iffy

[swizz] 17/4/2013 17:26

To interested holders, there is a bit of info on the sharesoc site in relation to todays meeting, you may find it of interest.....GL S

Link....




Btw - You will need to register, but it is free to do so.

[tara7] 17/4/2013 17:21

29howard, seem bitter and twisted, poor old TOPS buys shares that others do not want,thus, old shareholders can GET OUT [by selling to him]. However you run the poor guy down day and night.

Tops is a bullish type, i say good luck to him.

[esmith3] 17/4/2013 14:26

That was certainly a very close vote:

22,684,718 (77.6 per cent.) votes for the resolution.

6,549,228 (22.4 per cent.) votes against the resolution.

[solarno lopez] 17/4/2013 14:00

We have been watching him for sometime

[solarno lopez] 17/4/2013 13:34

I see he has not responded HOWARD !