bobloh
16 Mar 2015
Re: LSE FTO Yes,it's gone.
MKKK
16 Mar 2015
Re: Valuation The IC ran the numbers a time or two.....!
Jag3
16 Mar 2015
LSE FTO Can anyone confirm if LSE have deleted the FTO BB?
Jag3
15 Mar 2015
Re: Mr Lui Hi Mike, I put this point to VSA Capital but got no response. Also in my post of 4/12/14 FTO confirmed that shares held in the JV can only be sold with the consent of both parties to the JV.
Mike BP
15 Mar 2015
Re: Mr Lui Jag,If what you say is correct,.. i.e. then that fact alone would surely have made the deal null and void? Surely you cannot make part of the offer dependant upon something that you cannot deliver?Best
mercersroad
15 Mar 2015
Valuation Phillip. Which is why we will be getting an independent valuation before anything else. The company based its valuation purely on the share price taken in a very narrow time frame. Normally when a majority is buying out a minority it offers at least one other measure of valuation: either a quotation on another exchange or a trade sale valuation where the company is valued by someone in the business buying it. No other valuation option was offered, nor were any valuation criteria given other than the share price. This would therefore be deemed to be a false prospectus by omission.
Jag3
15 Mar 2015
Mr Lui I would have thought that all aspects of the Scheme would need to be implementable by the Offeror. The CVR component requires Mr Lui's agreement to sell any CGH's shares held in the CGG JV, FTO only has direct control over 33%, the balance of the holding being held in the JV.
Phillip Reid
15 Mar 2015
Re: Thus spoke Zarathustra (again) To put it a bit more succinctly, if there is value attributable to shareholders in the CVR then there must be some recognisable criteria for the shareholders to know there rights. IMHO Surely a question of simple human rights.
Phillip Reid
15 Mar 2015
Re: Thus spoke Zarathustra (again) Well we can all enjoy these intellectual exchanges but when it comes to the crunch in a court it is all about facts. We may consider the 10p to be low (esp with current and past value of the stake in CGH on top of the value of the rest of the business), but it was presented with the possibility of another 5p - the CVR. Why ? To make the 10p look acceptable IMO.So we come to the CVR, which is what most of the complaints seem to be about (an insult to the intelligence of the shareholders has been said), but no-one seems to have yet articulated what it is about the CVR that is not acceptable. It just seems wrong.To me the fault with the CVR is that there is some value due to the shareholders from the CGH holding if FD sell some or all of said holding of CGH shares, but IF they don't sell there is no value due to the shareholders. That cannot be right, just depending upon the whim of FD doing something in the future that is detrimental to their own wealth at that later point when they have taken possession of the whole of FTO. I wonder how a court would see that argument. I also wonder where Mr. Liu stands in all of this; having once been in conflict with legal proceedings, surely he wouldn't want to be associated again with something ethically/morally questionable.IMHO
Bravon
14 Mar 2015
Re: Thus spoke Zarathustra (again) Well, we are certainly moving along, and I am broadly in agreement with your whole first para.. I agree it could all have been done so much better, but that is water under the bridge. As to the rest, you sound like someone who has found some kind of technicality on which to hang one final assault. I rather think that this Court, unlike (eg) a criminal hearing, will most likely not allow a technical flaw to lead to a situation where we are faced with an impasse, and that the emphasis will be on bringing proceedings to a pragmatic conclusion.I will watch with interest. B.
mercersroad
14 Mar 2015
Thus spoke Zarathustra (again) Bravon, I hope you approve this expansion of our literary horizons.I’m sorry we’ve got waylaid by the issue of the ‘little man’. I don’t fancy myself as a latter day Watt Tyler leading the unwashed masses to their doom. And I certainly wouldn’t presume to speak for you. Equally I think it fanciful to infer from my admittedly emotional allusion to cases where ‘the little man’ has had to fight for justice that there is anything amiss in Mr Chiu’s actions. Heaven forefend. It is just that it would have been helpful if he had provided some objective criteria – a trade sale valuation for instance – as to how he arrived at a figure of 10p a share for the valuation of the company apart from the say so of the independent directors he himself appointed. It is this that upsets me and makes me cross. He would have saved us all an awful lot of time and energy if he had.Suggest you don’t get too hung up on an appeal. Suffice it to say the fat lady still has one more aria in her repertoire.An irony of this saga is the transformation of Fortune from a murky little grub into a beautifully transparent butterfly. We know from published sources precisely the earning power of its component parts. I will be very, very, very surprised if the company (or rather its component parts) don’t put in an impressively robust performance for 2014/15 counter to the downbeat forecast of the independent directors.
Bravon
14 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... Maybe it will Guyfawkes, maybe it will but, while we await that glorious day we have to deal with the reality of the present. Nice quote anyway, and thank you for the intellectual acknowledgement. Every single word that I have quoted from mercersroad is there in his post (it went on so long that you have to 'click-on' for the finale). The legal line between 'mere vulgar abuse' and actionable libel is often unclear, but some of that stuff, especially when aggravated by implying that the actions of FD might resemble criminal offences such as rate rigging, could result in actual damage to reputation. So that clunk in the letterbox might just be a writ, which would really spoil someone's breakfast. Whilst, as I have made clear, I can empathise with the disappointment and disillusion that has been expressed, that said, we are not in such a bad place, and I for one do not want a pressure group purporting to represent my rights. More than that, in the absence of any kind of proof that would stand-up in law, I have to completely disassociate myself from the vitriolic attacks on the Chius and their associates. I do not think that my worst case scenario of a re-listing with plummeting value is totally off the books, and should the Scheme unravel any alternative could certainly see many small investors substantially disadvantaged. That would indeed be a travesty. B.
Guyfawkes
14 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... Bravon, again a very well written piece. However, too much hyperbole, irrelevance and pessimistic speculation in it for my taste. Hyperbole since, once again, you are ascribing to mercersroad statements and inferences he simply does not make. Irrelevance and pessimistic speculation since the court has already decided that FO will not be relisted. And in any case, as mercersroad has made clear in his postings, the focus of his criticism is directed towards the CVR and the arrangements for its (non)payment to investors. In short, I am of the view that if individuals feel strongly that they have suffered an injustice they have every right to attempt to address that injustice. Nevertheless, this really was a most entertaining piece. Indeed, both you and mercersroad have lifted the tone of the debate with your erudite quotations - here's one I like: 'forsitan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit'.
Bravon
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... I am happy that this discussion is getting a bit more objective, and how wonderful it is that we now have Oscar Wilde in the mix. "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" has always seemed inspirational to me, and maybe helps define my own resilience in the face of disappointment. I think you did get a bit carried away, mercersroad, in your original 'penultimate aria' post, and after we got as far as "cardsharpers" I was almost expecting allegations of horse-thievery, rape and pillage. It was rabble-rousing stuff, but I am not sure that you are doing any favours. It sounded like a rather pink vigilante having a go at the whole wicked capitalist system, and I started to wonder what you were doing here anyway.All that as it may, here is what still concerns me. You purport to be representing the little man, most of which species are presumably amongst the group dismissed by you as suffering from 'a culture of inertia'. But maybe it is not inertia, but just the old 'silent majority' thing, with most PIs not ecstatic about the result, but also not feeling too set-upon. It is a very small minority of investors who take part in discussion boards, or attend AGMs, and I am not convinced that the rest necessarily welcome a pressure group representing them. Especially as most of them are, at this point, busily contemplating what to do with their 10ps.Here's the rub, and I have made this point once before, albeit falling on fairly stony ground. However unlikely, suppose that your efforts were somehow to overturn this scheme at the 11th hour, what then ? What is it that the markets like almost less than anything else ..... uncertainty ! I cannot see any reason for supposing that FD would come back with a better offer. Why ? Because they would not need to. If the shares were relisted following such a mess, the most likely outcome is that the SP would go into free fall. Remember it was at 6 or 7p immediately before the offer was announced. It could easily go lower.So try to get into the FD mindset. They would now owe no favours to the shareholders, and they would be pretty ticked off. They could happily watch the market drift, and eventually pick-up the shares they want through the market at a considerable discount to the 10p currently on offer. Either themselves or with a third party. FTO will not necessarily turn-in a sparkling set of results, and the BoD can find a dozen reasons not to declare a dividend. In that scenario the small investors will be well and truly shafted, but by whom ? FD ? Or by the unelected vigilante group who upset the Scheme ? From Hero to Villain is a very short distance in time ! Probably FD do not think they have a problem at this point but, if they do, all they need is to get some 'favourable' PI representation into Court and I honestly think you would be hung out to dry. All IMHO. B.
Phillip Reid
13 Mar 2015
Re: I can empathise, but not sympathise ... Roger - I also agree with you.That is the reason I was with FTO and committed (for me) in quite a big way.
