Bison722
07 May 2018
Re: Control EagleRe-read your previous post - you said and I quote “total control” .......... not correctTherefore maybe you are the “simple minded” (senile mind might more apt) one as you do not understand the difference between control and total control Not once did I say COC weren’t in a somewhat controlling position And of course you write simple minded then go on to preach about no insults.......as I said before, hypocrite and odious Question again........if company X offer 65p to acquire BLVN, how do COC stop other shareholders getting 65p per share?
eagle51
06 May 2018
Re: Control .............."Crown Ocean's stake in Bowleven, which it built up ahead of the meeting, was significant. All of the results were tight. Excluding Crown Ocean's stake, most resolutions received support from only around a quarter of all the votes cast, with around three-quarters rejecting the proposals."Excluding the votes cast in respect of the shares held by Crown Ocean Capital and its nominees, all resolutions proposed at the general meeting would have been defeated by a significant margin," said Bowleven."All major institutional shareholders remaining on the register of members of the company after posting of the circular voted against all of the resolutions. The only exception to this was a single institutional shareholder that voted in favour of resolution 8 [to remove Tracy], consistent with the PIRC proxy guidance for the general meeting," said the company"......................this was when COC held a lot fewer shares than they hold today. From memory they held about 13% but I might be wrong.[link] not the one peddling lies and deceit, but certain people ARE exhibiting their lack of knowledge and experience of how things work in the real world.I don't know what COC's intentions are and nor does anyone else except COC. My experience is simply that hedge funds tend not to behave honorably when they have control which, to all intents and purposes, they do here. Maybe COC are different. I certainly hope so, otherwise simple-minded people like indaknow and Bison, plus a few others who continue to shout loudly on here about how they are right and those who point out there are risks are wrong, insulting and abusing these and others who don't agree with them, which includes a significant majority of institutional shareholders who voted against COC's proposals, will shoulder the responsibility forever that their lack of knowledge and understanding cost others what many probably couldn't afford. People should be aware of the risks. It is entirely possible there will be a reasonable outcome for everyone. 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.From the moment you and a minority of other shareholders voted in favour of COC's proposals, you gave COC control and you will have to go along with whatever they decide . If you have a grievance you can always bring an action against them for "oppression of a minority" I suppose, but the burden of proof falls on the oppressed minority (it was the old section 210 of the 1948 Companies Act - don't know where the equivalent section is in the 2006 Act). It is an expensive route to take and there's a poor record of success. You'd be hoisted by your own petard in all probability anyway because at that stage COC would say they weren't a majority.Outfits like COC rely on apathy and ignorance when it comes to corporate procedure. It's just a fact.Please lay off with the insults. I've had a lifetime's experience in the relevant field and am always on the side of ordinary shareholders - even you. all imo/dyor
videodawn
04 May 2018
Re: Control IndaknowI agree entirely, it is apathy that rules OK in general meetings , which is why activists, including existing directors, get their way, and snouts remain in troughs unchallenged.You seem to be a responsible shareholder, but I suspect you are in minority.
indaknow
04 May 2018
Re: Control VideodawnAs I said in my last post "This is not COC exercising “control”, this is shareholders either deciding they agree with the resolutions or being too apathetic to vote against the resolutions."All of my shares in listed companies are held via nominee intermediaries, but that's never stopped me attending general meetings and voting. It isn't difficult to contact an intermediary and ask for a letter confirming your shares. I've never had any issues. It's equally no different from when I attend general meetings of private companies. Additionally, there is no restriction on shareholders casting votes by proxy in the case of a listed company. If you decide not to vote, that's your option, but it isn't as difficult as you suggest - at least not in my experience.
videodawn
04 May 2018
Re: Control Good Evening indaknow.Perhaps you are looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope.COC has a blocking minority in excess of 25% and can therefore vote down any extraordinary resolution which it disagrees with. So that is a certain level of control.Folks who "own" shares via nominee intermediaries such as on line brokers have no vote unless they instruct the nominee to vote for them or obtain proxies. That is too difficult for many folk and the nominees don't make it easy for them. Most don't care anyway.I do not think there is an army of certificated shareholders who would turn up and vote at a general meeting, either here or at any other listed company.So it is no great stretch of the imagination that COC would have over 50% of votes present or by proxy for an ordinary resolution, simply through online apathy.One can see a way in which they have a high probability of exercising control, should they so wish.
indaknow
04 May 2018
Control Eagle posted earlier today in relation to “COC having total control”. This isn’t the first time that Eagle, or others, have posted misleading and inaccurate information about COC’s shareholding. Hopefully the following wont come across as too patronising or condescending, but I think that Eagle’s lies need to be tackled once and for all.COC do not have control of BLVN. They own slightly less than 30% of the issued shares. Unless someone can point to evidence to the contrary, I believe that COC acquired their shares legitimately - i.e. they bought them on the open market and all of us here (with the same funds) could have done the same. Most decisions that BLVN take are actually taken by directors and only a limited number of decisions require directors to seek shareholder consent. Appointing or removing directors requires that passing of an ordinary resolution - i.e. 50%+1 share.Eagle and Winnet have at various times in the past 12 months stated that the directors of BLVN are ‘stooges’ for COC because COC proposed their appointment and ergo these directors are therefore following COC’s direction.So, if COC own less than 30% of BLVN shares how did COC appoint the directors? The new directors were appointed and Kevin Hart and the other ex-directors were removed because COC voted in favour of the resolutions and a large number of shareholders decided to exercise apathy and didn’t block the resolutions. This is not COC exercising “control”, this is shareholders either deciding they agree with the resolutions or being too apathetic to vote against the resolutions. COC still cannot pass an ordinary resolution. BLVN directors do not have any “Bushell v Faith” type voting powers (that would enable them to help COC pass an ordinary resolution against the wishes of other shareholders, by conferring additional votes for directors who are also shareholders).Quite simply, COC do not have “control” and rather, BLVN have shareholders who can’t bother themselves to vote. If COC are able to get ‘their way’ it is simply because other shareholders allow it. Eagle won’t make this point because he would prefer to peddle lies and present COC as bad people who want to steal shareholders’ money. Do COC have influence over BLVN? Yes, arguably they do have influence because as a major shareholder they will expect to have the ear of the board. This is no different from any other listed company operating on AIM or the main market.However, influence and control are not the same and nobody should believe Eagle’s lies when he suggests that COC can control the board and control our destiny. It is utter rubbish. So long as shareholders owning 50%+1 share vote against whatever COC propose, we will control BLVN.
Simonhare999
04 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS The majority of posts on here are otiose**Somewhat ironically including this one
Nervousrex
04 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS I have to admit I had to google "otiose ", if that's the word you meant Inda .
Bison722
04 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS hi eagle...............i'll just tweak your post so its just that little bit more honest Hey Charlie - try making a post (based on no facts, no evidence, no substance and then when asked by actual holders for a bit more meat on the bones, immediately label them as unintelligent and then divert the conversation to your own career success ) on here saying it's almost certain normal shareholders here wont do well, with COC having "total" (although they actually only hold sub 30% ) control (thanks to KH being completely incompetent for over a decade and allowing them to buy so many shares so cheaply) - then see what follows.........
eagle51
04 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS Hey Charlie - try making a post on here saying you don't think it's certain shareholders here will ultimately do well, with COC having total control thanks to a minority of shareholders (other than COC) voting for this to happen - then see what follows.........
indaknow
04 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS CharlieI'm glad that your first ever post on Blvn's BB is so insightful and valuable to fellow readers. Thanks for sharing your insights on the prospects of the forthcoming Etinde appraisal well drills, the pitfalls of Bomono and the lack of obvious buyer for any potential gas and the recent announcement by the Company that it intends to delay any decision about appointing a long term chairman (does this indicate offering a long term contract to a Chairman is otiose* if a bid is around the corner?). I don't know what I would do without such useful discussion points being raised. Pity. In the good old days you wouldn't post on this site unless you actually had something to add. Maybe you should spend a couple of minutes looking for the "ignore" option so your sensitivities aren't further upset?*I'm guessing that you'll need to search the interweb to determine the definition of that word......
Charlie56
04 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS In the good old days you lot would all go to the playground and have a fight..........Nowadays you use BBs. Pity.
Bison722
03 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS afternoon eagle - hope you are enjoying the roundunfortunately you really do come across as quite an unpleasant and odious individual. if you arent jumping from board to board of shares you dont hold arguing with everyone who dare defend their investment from your one sided negativity, you are composing a several hundred word essay about your lifes achievements. there is no need to review your history, you and everyone who has had a debate with you knows its there and what you are like. its in almost every single post, ramblings about royalties, the accountancy years, the early retirement, career success etc etc..............you are no doubt pompous, arrogant and have an extremely elevated opinion of yourself. there are numerous people who have said very similar about you, but the problem is with them isn't it?every post of yours is condescending in its nature, you view yourself as far more intellectually superior to almost everyone and as soon as someone disagrees with your view or even asks you to substantiate your opinion, you are straight into the game of juvenile and spiteful jabs. it seems like you get some enjoyment out of belittling others, fragile ego or just a lot of insecurity? there are several insults even in your most recent post to me, yet you have the audacity to have a go at me and others for it, you can add hypocrite to the list of your wonderful personality traits. in your latest tirade i see you are still yet to stay on point and actually back up your views of BLVN with any substance. you even go to the extent of making up nonsense like i have said "BLVN is a safe bet"................where have i said that? and yet there is still more false statements from you..............because i did in fact ask jac about his other investments, i asked what they were, if he posted any live trades, i even asked him to provide a SINGLE post of his on another share forum apart from BLVN..........can you find one eagle? if not what does that tell you?see the problem with the likes of jac and winnet is they dont want BLVN to succeed as they would have missed out. their unsubstantiated, fact-less and vindictive negativity is purely designed to comfort themselves for selling out and they dont care if it is to the detriment of others, the very basis of their agenda is disingenuous, now whats wrong with me challenging posters like that?and right so now you are saying "An investment in the Company might do well and it might not. It is as simple as that"..................you have changed your tune somewhat havent you???!!! lol!!............. from all the sarcastic comments about COC being charitable and your theories of COC siphoning off cash and giving next to nothing back to other shareholders..........is that because the SP has been going up and up or is it because you are finally realising you look a bit silly when you dont have a solid response when being asked to substantiate your hypothesis? still waiting for you, in all your wisdom and experience, to explain how if company X offers 65p per share, how COC keep other investors from getting 65p share?you can exaggerate and sensationalise my comments all you like, the fact is you are just old. i bet that being bettered by someone younger and who you view to be vastly intellectually inferior makes your blood boil, but you shouldnt be getting worked up at your age, come on, have a little sit down and Werthers Original, stress cant be good for the ol' ticker#helptheaged
indaknow
03 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS EagleYou have once again broken my irony klaxon. When you typed the sentence below did you ever consider that the same sentiment applies to you?“I note that virtually every post you make on whichever company you are interested in contains an insult of some kind to people whose views you disagree with.”
eagle51
03 May 2018
Re: HSBC up stake to over 7% - see RNS Bison - calling someone a liar (I don't find any evidence to suggest winnet is such a person) is an insult (worse than). I'm not aware I've made any posts saying how successful I am (or not), or given anything other than basic details about myself. No doubt you'll now spend hours going over all my old posts to prove you're right. As for your 'help the aged' put-down, most would regard this as being is in very poor taste. It is also very misguided. You effectively write off an entire group of people simply by virtue of their age. You could only ever dream of achieving the present performance, academic records and general capabilities of very many of these people.The above alone points to you being one of life's losers. I note that virtually every post you make on whichever company you are interested in contains an insult of some kind to people whose views you disagree with. How sad.BLVN hasn't played out yet - it remains to be seen what the final outcome will be and who does well out of it. Until it does I suggest you afford others the respect they're entitled to for their views, even if they differ from your own. Your unqualified comments about how BVLN's share price will perform in the future and about people who in your limited view are guilty of whatever you find them to be guilty of, based on your clearly narrow experience of how big business - particularly in the oil industry in places like Cameroon - actually works, are a great deal worse than those made by doubters like me, when provoking people like you with tongue-in-cheek remarks like: "10p soon". Your advice that BVLN is a safe bet is badly misguided. An investment in the Company might do well and it might not. It is as simple as that. The potential rewards are not imv sufficiently compelling as to warrant an investment. I'll be happy to miss out because my view is that the companies I am invested in will do better over the longer term.Your turn now - I know you won't be able to resist. I'll be playing golf whilst you're dissecting my previous posts. The sun is out and all is well in God's waiting room you'll be pleased to learn. Plus I haven't had any bailiffs calling 
GLimo/dyor PS: you didn't ask Jak what's happened to the share price of the companies he chose to invest in when he sold his BVLN. Do you not think this is relevant?
