Hotel Corporation (The) - HCP Stream Log

Maybe when you mentioned Duncan B built business up to £175mill and sold it for £28,000 that put people off

shame Hedgehog, few people agree with you only 5% take up of open offer, and share price below offer.

why would the company and shareholders want to get involved in a scheme managed by puma/shore who lost the company everything???

The Hotel Corporation plc ("HCP" or the "Company") Proposed new Investing Policy Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting Dear Shareholder, Ref- Mr Yeoman and Mr Jackson's Requisition I am writing on behalf of myself and Mr Jackson, who together have requisitioned a General Meeting of your Company. It is our belief that a change in the board of your company is now necessary and will give all shareholders the opportunity to create value. During the last year I have put forward several suggestions via the board and approached Shore Capital (under instruction from the board) for their support. However, the board have seemingly been unable to move forward, or indeed consult its wider shareholder base on our ideas, without the specific support of its stakeholder, Shore Capital. This support was evidently not forthcoming. As you are now aware, shareholders have now been offered an alternative opportunity; to invest in a new fund structure, advised by Puma Investments, a member of the Shore Capital Group. Aside from noting that the Board seems only prepared to recommend to shareholders a new direction for the Company, if it involves Shore Capital, shareholders should also recognise that the previous Puma vehicle in which HCP shareholders held their investment, resulted in a large loss of capital for shareholders, but a large return for its promoters, Puma. [link] Subject to the passing of Resolution 1, the Company will enter into a property investment advisory agreement with Puma Investment Management Limited. Puma Investments is a subsidiary of the Shore Capital group of companies. -Is this a conflict of interest? -Are the proposed Puma fees fair and reasonable? -Should Shore Capital be voting on this at all? It is my belief that the recently suggested investing policy, resolution 1. put forward by your board, is as a result of the pressure felt by the board after the requisition of the GM and is not a well planned strategy for your company. Shareholders must now vote on three resolutions:- 1. To adopt the new investment plan into another Puma structure (owned by Shore Capital) 2. Appoint Marcus Yeoman as a director. 3. Remove Derek Short as a director of your company. We have received a number of supportive e mails which in conjunction with our own holdings represents approximately 25%, this group have indicated that they wish to vote for change. In order to do this they will vote in the following way:- 1. Against the resolution 2. For the resolution 3. For the resolution I would urge all shareholders to vote at this time in a way that they feel will preserve value and give your company the best prospects moving forward. It is important that if shareholders hold shares in a nominee company and have not received their proxy card, they should contact their broker or advisor and instruct them on the way they wish to vote, all votes must be received before 11am on the 14th Sept. 2015. Yours faithfully Marcus Yeoman Shareholder Contact: [email protected]

anybody getting my msgs?

even if HCP only realise 10% of puma hotel values we could be talking 3-4 million which would have a huge impact on the price

what news, nothing in it that is new. i think you're grasping at straws. Some people were waiting for news of GM of Puma, as if it was ongoing for three days!!

200k at 1.95??????

Sorry KNIGELK wont sell in future when price goes up, should i wait till it goes back down??

sorry, but whats this meeting about???