strange,tab said in their report that King denied any connection to NOAL.Could be interesting. Initially I though this would simply be a 'rubber stamping' of the TAB ruling. However, I recall reading a quote from King where he said the TAB ruling directed that he, David Cunningham King, had to make the offer for the rest of the shares at the stated price whereas the reality was that it was his holding company, New Oasis Limited, that had purchased the shares and should, therefore, have been the subject of the TAB ruling. That's just one of his lines of defence. No idea if he will even be able to put any others forward but the 'mistaken identity' one may well have some traction.
Trying to get out of it - at least temporarily - on a technicality. No idea if it will work.
Could be interesting. Initially I though this would simply be a 'rubber stamping' of the TAB ruling. However, I recall reading a quote from King where he said the TAB ruling directed that he, David Cunningham King, had to make the offer for the rest of the shares at the stated price whereas the reality was that it was his holding company, New Oasis Limited, that had purchased the shares and should, therefore, have been the subject of the TAB ruling. That's just one of his lines of defence. No idea if he will even be able to put any others forward but the 'mistaken identity' one may well have some traction.
Trying to get out of it - at least temporarily - on a technicality. No idea if it will work.
He might have been named as the person with the beneficial interest in New Oasis Limited - I don't know who the shareholders are but I assume King has most of them?
who is it thats causing this issue?
Ho hum another thread appeasing the mutants who now infest this site in even greater numbers than before.
You would imagine so. No idea how it will go, the TAB ruling was pretty damning of King and his colleagues and if the CoS simply rubber stamp their ruling then King is going to have to go to the expense of making the offer they directed.
No-one will take up his offer but, as I understand it, he will still have to lodge the funds in an escrow account and incur the expense associated with making the offer. It's madness really.
I don't know why I open these threads, I sit here and read them over and over again but still end up none the wiser.
Could someone tell me what TAB and NOAL are
TAB = Takeover Appeal Board.
NOAL - New Oasis Assets Limited (King's 'vehicle' for purchasing shares in RIFC).
RIFC = well, you know that one.
The board were given the go ahead to issue shares at the last AGM. But resolution 11, which would allow only selected existing shareholders to buy shares, wasn't passed. If it had been then director loans could have been converted to equity and Mike Ashley's shareholding diluted.
Mike Ashley doesn't have shares now. Could be resolution 11 isn't needed anymore and a traditional rights issue is sufficient to enable the board's strategy.
There were two resolutions relating to shares at our last AGM. 10 & 11. Resolution 12 was a beast resolution that failed in its original objective. It lives on so those behind it can milk money out of the beast support from T shirts and crowd funding.What was the other resolution that would have allowed a share option Res 10 / 12 ? - but for some reason this wasn't seen as viable
There were two resolutions relating to shares at our last AGM. 10 & 11. Resolution 12 was a beast resolution that failed in its original objective. It lives on so those behind it can milk money out of the beast support from T shirts and crowd funding.
There were two resolutions relating to shares at our last AGM. 10 & 11.
If it goes against DK then he has to make an offer for all shares. That won’t be a problem as very few want to sell. The problem ,and I stand to be corrected,is that I think he has to lodge the funds capable of purchasing all the shares in a bank first. That is a lot of dough. There’s also the cost of issuing the offer to every shareholder etc.The TAB by all accounts. They say King acted in concert - he say's otherwise.
A poster on the old board explained the in's and out's of it in great detail - in laymans terms. I think it comes down to which lawyer plays the ace - it could go one way or the other. It's not exactly set in stone.
At least it's an issue that will be finally dealt with one way or another.
Under normal rules a rights issue would be open to all existing share holders. This would allow Ashley, when he was a share holder, and his allies to retain their influence by buying shares. The special resolution 11, had it been passed with resolution 10, would have allowed the board to choose which shareholders to offer more shares to. The benefit being, as well as raising funds, excluding unfriendly shareholders from buying shares and reducing their influence in the business.So what was Res 10 and why wasn't it viable as a share option?
I don't know why I open these threads, I sit here and read them over and over again but still end up none the wiser.
Could someone tell me what TAB and NOAL are
I'm naive in these matters, but wouldn't it be a GOOD thing for Dave King to make an offer for the shares?
The price at which he would be obliged to offer means nobody would accept his offer. If it goes ahead it will be a pointless, and very expensive exercise that will change absolutely nothing.
Expect him to have spoken to experts about itExpect to see Tom Irish bumping his gums a lot on this nonsense
So on one hand, if noone would accept his offer, why doesn't he make it (that would avoid costs of this legal debacle) and he would have nothing to lose? And if he did and people sold to him, would that not give him outright control? Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Is that the freak who brushes his teeth with dogshit?It's not exactly secret ffs. Beasts are all over it on Twitter - no doubt that cnut Doleman will be in attendance
He would have to put the funds into an escrow account on the assumption that EVERYONE would take up his offer. I read an estimate in excess of £10m but don’t know if it’s accurate. Obviously he gets that back if nobody takes up the offer but it means finding and tying up a huge sum of money for several weeks/months. That’s not good business practice. The cost of making the offer is also several hundred thousand pounds - which he will never get back. It’s a nonsense but, on the face of it, King is going to have to go through with it unless there is a ‘surprise result’ in Court next week.
Presumably he took advice which told him this would happen long before he set out on this adventure?
Don't like the sound of that as it seems excessive bearing in mind that is unlikely shares will be on offer at a selling price.He would have to put the funds into an escrow account on the assumption that EVERYONE would take up his offer. I read an estimate in excess of £10m but don’t know if it’s accurate. Obviously he gets that back if nobody takes up the offer but it means finding and tying up a huge sum of money for several weeks/months. That’s not good business practice. The cost of making the offer is also several hundred thousand pounds - which he will never get back. It’s a nonsense but, on the face of it, King is going to have to go through with it unless there is a ‘surprise result’ in Court next week.
He and his colleagues didn’t consider themselves to be a ‘concert party’. The TAB did. Any advice he got is just that ‘advice’; be it good or bad.
TAB = Takeover Appeal Board.
NOAL = New Oasis Assets Limited (King's 'vehicle' for purchasing shares in RIFC).
RIFC = well, you know that one.
Why would making the offers cost so much?He would have to put the funds into an escrow account on the assumption that EVERYONE would take up his offer. I read an estimate in excess of £10m but don’t know if it’s accurate. Obviously he gets that back if nobody takes up the offer but it means finding and tying up a huge sum of money for several weeks/months. That’s not good business practice. The cost of making the offer is also several hundred thousand pounds - which he will never get back. It’s a nonsense but, on the face of it, King is going to have to go through with it unless there is a ‘surprise result’ in Court next week.
Why would making the offers cost so much?
Wouldn't it just be as simple as sending the offers to shareholders?
When was the last court case to go against us ? We won most of the recent ones.Given our recent track record in court cases in recent times I'd hazard a guess that this is yet another that will go against us and cost more money to slow down the inevitable recovery.
Contempt of court in the cos is a civil matter but has criminal penalties.it now appears that dave could be cold shouldered and disqualified as a director if he fails to comply with the court ruling, it is also apparently a criminal offence not a civil one to defy a cos order.
What is your source of this info?it now appears that dave could be cold shouldered and disqualified as a director if he fails to comply with the court ruling, it is also apparently a criminal offence not a civil one to defy a cos order.
I relise you may not have heard of CRASBO’s, which are civil offences with criminal penalties.Contempt of court in the cos is a civil matter but has criminal penalties.
As far as i remember it was.Was it not the spiv David Somers that made the initial complaint to the Takeover Panel