drunkasaskunk
11 May 2015
Re: FLYING Hmm - really? People were being offered prices to ell in the 0.4s just after the opening bell and check out Friday's holding RNS (just released)...desperate for shares?
yoyo
11 May 2015
movement on CEB
BenIrving
11 May 2015
Sea of blues
opulentia
11 May 2015
FLYING how high will it go today?made a packet on Friday, left the free shares to run, GLA LTH
eye_user
11 May 2015
Re: Where is this heading? When the dust settles, aren't we heading back down to the 0.1 level here? There's no substance to back up the recent share price move. My guess is the share placing is either cancelled or defeated and the much needed cash is raised via a rights issue. We shall see over the coming days...---Read the RNS you have missed the boat at 0.1
rokerparker
10 May 2015
Re: Would you like 50% or 10%? Kruger, You are correct. If the RNS was correct about the 10% figure then an offer must be made to all other shareholders which "must include a cash alternative for all shareholders of that class at the highest price paid by the offeror in that period." So assuming the holding was acquired in the last few months than maybe 0.1 to 0.2p per share. However, if the 10% was a silly error and the 50% was correct based on authorised and issued shares at the time of crossing a threshhold, then the threshold crossed is 30%:"When a person or group acquires interests in shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights of a company, they must make a cash offer to all other shareholders at the highest price paid in the 12 months before the offer was announced (30% of the voting rights of a company is treated by the Code as the level at which effective control is obtained)."[link] Over the last twelve months the highest price was around 0.8p, last May. I assume that Mrs Williams must still retain most of her holdings as any significant reduction of a holding on this scale would need an RNS. The possibility of a forced offer of 0.8p must be a very tempting possibility when considering how to vote on the placing. especially to long term holders. My above comments assume that figures are correct and rules have been or will be followed. But to be honest the situation is so bizarre that anything and nothing is possible. The only thing that seem certain is that naked shorters will be and have been burned!
caesat
10 May 2015
Re: Where is this heading? If no money is raised by the company then I expect the share to be suspended pending "clarification of financial position".
Krugerrand
10 May 2015
Re: Would you like 50% or 10%? If Judith williams turns down placing then surely she needs to make a bid for co? So in energy interest to go through. Also I'm her interest to sell stock into the squeeze but I imagine restricted.Incredible scenes and interesting as to how it will play out. GLA
Frankers70
10 May 2015
Where is this heading? When the dust settles, aren't we heading back down to the 0.1 level here? There's no substance to back up the recent share price move. My guess is the share placing is either cancelled or defeated and the much needed cash is raised via a rights issue. We shall see over the coming days...
rokerparker
10 May 2015
Re: Would you like 50% or 10%? I totally agree, the 'number of shares in issue' must be the 'number of shares in issue'; NOT some notional number subject to a possible, successful, future resolution at an EGM. But I think the % is of little importance and probably due to a bit of 'brain fade' by the Company when writing the RNS. What is of much more importance is the number of shares and the relevance of this to the future vote at the EGM.I assume that the number of shares held by Mrs Williams is correct and that such a large purchase had only become possible because of naked shorting by someone. I find it interesting that the Company is querying the calculation of the % and not the number of shares bought by Mrs Williams.Assuming she bought the shares in good faith then best of luck to her. She must have made an awful lot of money in the last few days and now be half owner of an Oil Company ( or at least a potential Oil Company).The article, helpfully reposted by etadelete, was from Fridays FT, so I assume it is accurate.
drunkasaskunk
10 May 2015
Re: Would you like 50% or 10%? Quoting from helpful the article posted (or re-posted) by etadelete "The Company is seeking clarification as to the basis of the acquisition of the shares giving rise to this notification and whether the percentage should be stated by reference to the current issued share capital (ie not including the Placing Shares which have yet to be issued) and if so whether there are any regulatory implications.",I'll clarify for them for the price of a couple of pints. OF COURSE the percentage holding should be calculated based on the current number of shares in issue or perhaps even - under special circumstances - the number of shares that the market knows with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY will come to be in issue by a CERTAIN time. The alternative - i.e., to calculate percentage holdings by including in the denominator shares that DO NOT EXIST and may never be issued - is completely insane!Anyway, a tenner should cover it (seems to be London prices more or less everywhere these days)!
scotchoverice
10 May 2015
IF THE VOTE IS NO...then shorters will be burned savagely...no telling where the sp will end up as positions have to get closed
rokerparker
10 May 2015
Would you like 50% or 10%? So it appears that at the EGM on 19th May, Mrs Judith May Williams will be asked to vote on the placement proposal that effectively means she should own 10% of the Company rather than 50% of the Company. As she has (by some estimates and per the RNS), 342 million shares and the total number of authorised and issued shares, prior to approval of the placement, is only about 700 million, she should be able to vote down the placement virtually on her own! I wonder what I would do in her place?I know that this is a surreal interpretation of the various RNSs issued by the Company but it is one of several almost logical interpretations of an illogical situation.
etadelete
10 May 2015
Re: Relentless!! Squeezing New World Oil & Gas, after a reminder from the LSEDan McCrum | May 08 08:57 | 1 comment | Share A market notice from the London Stock Exchange on Thursday reminded member firms of their settlement obligations under its rules, prompted by what it describes as “settlement delays in relation to transactions in New World Oil & Gas.”The tiny Aim listed oil exploration group, you may remember, is the possible subject of a failure to read the small print short squeeze. Details on the strange situation below, but two things to conclude from the LSE’s statement: regulators are keeping a close eye on this one, but aren’t likely to step in and stop any squeeze.The debacle began last week when New World announced a £1.5m placing, via a four for one stock placing. Heavy trading followed — multiples of the 0.7bn shares in issue — and some of those transactions are thought to have been sales on extended settlement terms due to be satisfied with new stock issued in the placing.The problem? A group of shareholders intend to block the placing, which would leave sellers scrambling for shares from the the 0.7bn in existence, not the 3.6bn they had anticipated. As an alternative, the company has said it is seeking advice on the allotment of shares “via a rights offering or otherwise”, which would bail out anyone at risk of a squeeze if the new shares could be put into shareholder hands before the end of the month when T+20 trades are expected to settle.Also, when the company announced it had received a voting rights notification over 10 per cent of the company on April 30, it did so based on the future, post-placing share count. The Company is seeking clarification as to the basis of the acquisition of the shares giving rise to this notification and whether the percentage should be stated by reference to the current issued share capital (ie not including the Placing Shares which have yet to be issued) and if so whether there are any regulatory implications.If the shareholder, described as “Mrs Judith Williams”, has acquired 342,328,669 shares already, well that is very nearly half of the shares outstanding and could require an offer to be made for all the shares outstanding, under Takeover Panel rules. Ooops.Meanwhile, there also remain the Financial Conduct Authority principles about treating customers fairly to keep in mind for any after the fact analysis of trading books, as well as more specific rules on short selling. The example here is a large fine handed to Evolution in 2004 for market abuse: selling far more shares in Room Service than actually existed.The LSE is continuing to monitor the situation. Here’s the reminder of member firm obligations: Rule 5000 (Obligation to settle) and its associated guidance places an obligation on member firms to ensure that every on Exchange trade is duly settled on the agreed settlement date. This obligation remains, even if the reason for non-settlement is a customer or counterparty having failed to settle other transactions, including off Exchange transactions in the same stock. Member firms are expected to trade in a manner that will ensure that settlement deadlines can be met. Firms are also advised to make their customers aware of the situation before purchasing New World Oil and Gas shares on their behalf and warn them that there may be a delay in receiving their stock. Similarly, firms are advised to ensure that their clients have ready access to New World Oil and Gas shares if they are selling, to ensure timely delivery.We asked the company what it thought about the situation and the performance of its brokers, Beaumont Cornish and Cornhill Capital. It said: The Company will not comment on speculation re trading in its shares. It employs all of its advisors in good faith and to guide it as it looks to utilise the capital market to deliver its development strategy.We’ll update this if we hear from the brokers.
eye_user
09 May 2015
Re: auto sells Why not have a stop loss on part of your holding only. Ps: the risk here is huge.----0.07 > 0.7p lol thanks for your concern about the risk with NEW like we don't know .... lol
