indaknow
08 May 2018
Re: Control Eagle "No".
Muzzletoff
08 May 2018
BVI The UK Govt proposed that all British offshore territories which allowed formation of offshore incorporated entities (Companies to you and me), would have to in future provide information on their share register holders. Currently, this is not done, and there are those that argue that this encourages, criminal money, and dodgy Govt money to be channeled through these jurisdictions. British Virgin islands (BVI) were straight out the blocks protesting that they would have to consider their constitutional allegiance to the UK if this were enacted to UK law.FYI COC are registered in the BVI.
Bison722
08 May 2018
Re: Control "Now a simple question for you, indaknow. Based on what we know today, was I wise to sell my entire BLVN holding at 24.5p when I did? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will suffice"............................................................................................................................................is this a trick question?..................the SP today is 38p.............so NO
eagle51
08 May 2018
Re: Control No offence, Bison, but I've decided it's best for everyone if I reapply the filter.I hope things turn out well for you
eagle51
08 May 2018
Re: Control I thought it was reasonably clear I understood which relevant parties own roughly how many shares in BVLN and what happened at last year’s GM, when you and a minority of other shareholders (apart from COC) gave COC control of your Company. COC, then holding 22% of BLVN’s shares (thank you for correcting me earlier) managed to exert their influence to the extent that the votes of 75% of shareholders (apart from COC) were overturned and COC got what they wanted (as they will continue to do in the future). The result was that a board of new directors was installed comprising entirely COC’s puppets. You will know it is the directors of a company who determine how its affairs are conducted and the actions it takes. It is not what the technical position is that is important in any given set of circumstances. it is what happens in practice that counts, as any seasoned investor would know. I too know how to obtain a letter from my brokers (I use HL and AJ Bell) authorising me to attend and vote at meetings and, like you, I have attended many in my time. I also know I can instruct my brokers to submit a proxy vote to the Chairman of any Meeting, giving instructions on how I want the shares I beneficially own voted. Most often, I choose not to vote because there is nothing controversial being tabled and my vote wouldn’t make any difference anyway. Plus, as I don’t live in London, attendance costs time and expense.You and I are among a small minority of ordinary shareholders (ie private investors) who know the rules and act accordingly. The average PI either doesn’t know how to vote, doesn’t know what’s going on and wouldn’t understand anyway, or simply can’t be bothered. That’s why COC won the day last time. Had all PI shareholders voted, the strong likelihood is that COC’s proposals would have been overturned. But they weren’t, for reasons we both understand. COC got its way. It’s what happens. A minority of shareholders (other than COC), apparently including you and Bison, were so angry with BLVN’s existing board that they sided with COC to help them achieve their objectives, whatever they might be. Installing their own directors was only the precursor. To side with COC might prove to have been a wise decision and it might not. No-one yet knows how things will play out. Until they do, everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what will happen. All opinions are valid. The crux of the matter appears to have been that BLVN’s former directors were found guilty of all kind of crimes, ranging from treating the Company as if it was their personal piggy bank (on which there was definitely a case to answer) to the much lower than usual price of oil (which was imo the main reason for BLVN’s SP destruction, along with that of hundreds of other oil companies at the same time) for which they were definitely not responsible. Re the piggy bank scenario, step forward about 1000 other AIM directors and confess to the same thing. I was certainly not a fan of KH, but he evidently discharged certain of his perhaps more challenging responsibilities effectively – dealing with Biya and the other natives for one. Please explain, if there was such widespread anger at BLVN’s Board, why no action was taken by all the shareholders you now say can marshal their forces to defeat COC if it becomes necessary, to bring KH et al to heel? Are BLVN’s present PI shareholders so different that they will all vote ‘en masse’ to thwart COC should the latter behave improperly?Now a simple question for you, indaknow. Based on what we know today, was I wise to sell my entire BLVN holding at 24.5p when I did?A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will sufficeAll imo/dyor.
indaknow
08 May 2018
Topaz driller In other news.... The carrier 'Eagle' seems on course to arrive in Cameroon shortly.[link]
Bison722
08 May 2018
Re: Control "whether it's control or total control isn't really the point"ok - lets just disregard the English language then "total" or "effective" doesn't really matter.......same same but different ........jeeeeeeeez!!!"resolutions that required a 75% majority (what I call total control)"thank you captain obvious. and no you call sub 30% "total control", don't you? "and start paying themselves out what you regard as your money in whatever ways they chose that seemed legal at the time"yes a possibility - but has it happened yet, its been over a year? winnet said it would have happened straight away? and how is that really any different to KH saying $15 mil for bomono and then spending $95 mil and not informing the market? where was yours and winnets faux outrage then?"You seem to be in COC's hands (it's that 'control' thing again)but no doubt they have aligned their objectives firmly with yours and all other shareholders. Have they consulted you yet for advice?"you seem to forget we had a binary vote, KH or COC. you keep on at those who voted for COC like we had numerous choices and we chose them because they were the mutts nuts for lack of a better phrase! they were simply the lesser of 2 evils in my eyes, I have still not completely disregarded that COC could stitch us up, I am aware that is a risk, but when faced with the facts of KH's decade of incompetence I am willing to take the risk of the unknown. and plus each week that goes past and you and winnet are still yet to string a coherent and substantiated scenario of how COC take that money, I am feeling better and better about my choicewhen did KH consult shareholders? or even dip his hand in his own pocket to "align" himself with us?"I see there are well over 100 people who regard it as worthwhile following my posts on iii. There are 3 who follow yours, after reading 2224 of them over the last four and a half years" using that at all (let alone a meausre of senility) speaks volumes , didnt realise we were on facebook!! and you reckon most of those were before XEL........?..........i got a sneaky feeling they probably were.....LOLp.s. why is it you post at a ratio of approx 9:1 on shares you dont own to those that you do? is that not odd?p.p.s. how did you cope with the heatwave, those warmer temperatures can be as dangerous to you lot as the colder ones cant they? i hope you stayed cover up and hydrated?
indaknow
08 May 2018
Re: Control EagleI knew you would get there in the end. COC, by virtue of owning less than 50%+1 share, do not have control or total control of BLVN. You have misled by suggesting otherwise.I don’t think that we disagree about what happens in reality, but that doesn’t change the facts relating to whether, legally, COC can exercise control. You might call this semantics, but I don’t agree. There is no doubt that COC are able to greatly influence what happens here and there is every possibility that their intentions are not for the good of other shareholders. I have no doubt their only intention is to make as much money as possible and any casualties caught in the crossfire wont be something they give any thought to. However, shareholder apathy is not COC’s fault. I have attended countless AGMs. My broker (was TD, but now owned by the shower that is iii) has always been very happy to provide a letter confirming my shareholding and I’ve always been able to attend and vote at AGMs. Additionally, there is no reason why a shareholder cannot vote by proxy to ensure that they have their say. That’s exactly what I did with the last vote in relation to Hart and Co being removed.
eagle51
07 May 2018
Re: Control "Can COC pass either an ordinary or special resolution if other shareholders decide to exercise their rights and vote against the same ordinary or special resolution?"...................I assume you mean: "can COC cause an ordinary or special resolution to be passed"? etc. No - but for reasons videodawn and I (among others) have explained, shareholders other than COC almost certainly won't decide in enough numbers to participate in any vote that might take place to outvote COC (possibly COC & HSBC, which holds 7%. - COC holds 29%). It just doesn't happen. It's not the number of votes cast for or against a resolution proposed in a GM, taken as a % of total shares in issue, that determines the outcome of a vote. It is the number of votes cast for or against, as a % of the total number of votes actually cast.Apathy and a lack of knowledge about voting procedures (and a whole lot more) rules. Most PIs simply don't vote.Keep believing whatever you want, but you shouldn't mislead others just because you'd much prefer a situation to exist that doesn't. The experience I've referred to has been gained in all sorts of ways - not least in investing. What I did or do now in business isn't really that important, although I do have a good understanding of corporate procedure and investing in general (not that it makes me a better investor - I just don't get caught as often these days). People can make up their own minds whose views are likely to be the more valid - I've explained mine the best I can. You appear to think I'm wrong, which is fine by me.I repeat, it is entirely possible COC is a thoroughly reputable organisation that has every intention of playing openly and fairly for the benefit of all shareholders. It just doesn't often seem to happen these days, which is why I have doubts. Can you not just accept that different people have different views? Everything anyone says or does is based on experience. I can't work out where yours comes from and you haven't (to my knowledge) told us. What I do know is that it's not from anywhere I recognise.GL
indaknow
07 May 2018
Re: Control EagleI asked you a simple question, repeated below, but you couldn't answer it. As an "accountant" I'm quite sure that your regulator would have required you to act ethically? Simple question for you Eagle: Can COC pass either an ordinary or special resolution if other shareholders decide to exercise their rights and vote against the same ordinary or special resolution?Just answer the question as posed and leave aside any diatribe about ‘real world experience’ that you’ve gained from your countless successful years as an “accountant”.
eagle51
07 May 2018
Re: Control "It seems highly unlikely to me there would be enough votes cast".............etc
eagle51
07 May 2018
Re: Control When it comes to any vote, the practical situation is that COC has control. You can call it influence if you like, but it's votes that count. It seems highly unlikely to me there would not be enough votes cast by PIs with shares held in nominee accounts to match those cast by COC (and any other friendly holders). Thus, what COC wants, COC gets. My knowledge of accounting has nothing to do with it - it's experience of what almost invariably happens that counts.My comment about COC's holding wasn't intended to mislead anyone - the important point was that COC won a critical vote with a minority holding, when 75% of shareholders other than COC who knew how to and took the trouble to vote were opposed to the resolutions. COC now hold more shares than they did at the last general meeting, so the likelihood of COC (and other friendly holders) being outvoted in a future one seems to me to be remote.You seem to ignore the comments I make about the situation quite possibly playing out fairly and well for all shareholders. I just have a different take on the situation than you have and see what I regard as risk, whereas you and others don't. My personal view is that you are misleading people by inventing a situation that doesn't exist - one in which votes would be cast at a general meeting pro-rata to holdings (vis a vis COC and remaining shareholders). It simply won't happen.I don't say there won't be a decent outcome for all shareholders. My experience, where it concerns hedge funds' ownership of controlling interests in listed companies just doesn't inspire confidence.imo/dyor
indaknow
07 May 2018
Re: Control I have no issue with all shareholders being aware of the risks that they face. Having an “influential” hedge fund owning just shy of 30% is quite possibly a risk. However, glaring errors and more ‘spin’ of the ‘facts’ don’t help anyone._______“when COC held a lot fewer shares than they hold today. From memory they held about 13% but I might be wrong.”Yep, you are wrong. At the date of the general meeting called to oust Hart and Co. COC owned 22% of BLVN’s issued share capital. Quite a difference between 13% and 22% and quite surprising that you coudn’t spend less than 5 minutes to research this point before posting?_______“To all intents and purposes COC has control - of that there is no doubt. That you (indaknow) and Bison don't understand this is down to your lack of understanding and experience.”“Outfits like COC rely on apathy and ignorance when it comes to corporate procedure. It's just a fact”The insults trickle off your tongue with the same frequency as the lies and deceit. Sorry to be a pedant, but “control” from a legal perspective is not the same as “influence”.Simple question for you Eagle: Can COC pass either an ordinary or special resolution if other shareholders decide to exercise their rights and vote against the same ordinary or special resolution?Just answer the question as posed and leave aside any diatribe about ‘real world experience’ that you’ve gained from your countless successful years as an “accountant”.You’re showing your age be referencing the 1948 Companies Act! I think you are referring to “unfair shareholder prejudice” (s994 Companies Act 2006 which replaced s459 Companies Act 1985)? Not sure why you believe that COC’s majority is important in such claims as s996 allows the Court to make any order it wishes and specifically s996(2) allows the Court to order that the Company purchase the shares of the claimant (subject to the rules on maintanence of capital).
handoverfist
07 May 2018
I think KH had to go and nothing that has happened since seems as bad as it was before his departure with an ever dropping share price.The discussion of control of the company is an interesting one. I think there is some common ground between all contributors and it is interesting to hear a range of views.Could I suggest though that we leave out the personal attacks. We are all concerned about our investments and feel strongly but including a personal attack on the end of a weell argued posting detracts from it. Please continue to disagree that is what is needed on a discussion board but no more personal attacks.
eagle51
07 May 2018
Re: Control Bison - whether it's control or total control isn't really the point. For the reasons explained by another poster (whom you would no doubt also regard as senile but I am a fan of) the circumstances here are such that COC has effective overall control (ie 50% + 1 share), which would be what mattered should they decide to 'turn native' and start paying themselves out what you regard as your money in whatever ways they chose that seemed legal at the time. Moving on from this, with approaching 30% of the shares in its name and unknown beneficial ownership of a few more % I suspect would be supportive of COC, it seems likely to me that, were COC to put forward resolutions that required a 75% majority (what I call total control), those resolutions would be passed because it is the overall number of votes cast that determines the outcome. I have said before that a sale of the Company might eventually provide the best result for all. If 65p a share was offered, most ordinary shareholders would probably find this acceptable. I special resolution would be required to approve the sale, however. As long as COC found it ok I guess they wouldn't use their blocking vote.You seem to be in COC's hands (it's that 'control' thing again)but no doubt they have aligned their objectives firmly with yours and all other shareholders. Have they consulted you yet for advice? If not, it can surely only be a matter of time 
I see there are well over 100 people who regard it as worthwhile following my posts on iii. There are 3 who follow yours, after reading 2224 of them over the last four and a half years.If my mind is senile, what does this say about yours?imo/dyor
