Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Regarding Keith Jackson saying "if Wallace, Nash and Crighton remain in agreement then this package will receive boardroom support":

 

I can't really comprehend why Laxey's representative Norman Crighton would vote in favour of King & co's offer because Laxey have invested millions in buying 13.3 million shares and won't be keen to see that shareholding massively diluted.

 

Going by their previous actions - including their participation in the recent Open Offer - it would seem far more likely that Laxey would want to increase their shareholding in a further share issue as opposed to see it diluted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Keith Jackson saying "if Wallace, Nash and Crighton remain in agreement then this package will receive boardroom support":

 

I can't really comprehend why Laxey's representative Norman Crighton would vote in favour of King & co's offer because Laxey have invested millions in buying 13.3 million shares and won't be keen to see that shareholding massively diluted.

 

Going by their previous actions - including their participation in the recent Open Offer - it would seem far more likely that Laxey would want to increase their shareholding in a further share issue as opposed to see it diluted.

 

Struck me as rather strange too, Zappa. It should be pointed out that Laxey were also reported to be on board a year ago. Look how that turned out for King and company.

Edited by Rangersitis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Keith Jackson saying "if Wallace, Nash and Crighton remain in agreement then this package will receive boardroom support":

 

I can't really comprehend why Laxey's representative Norman Crighton would vote in favour of King & co's offer because Laxey have invested millions in buying 13.3 million shares and won't be keen to see that shareholding massively diluted.

 

Going by their previous actions - including their participation in the recent Open Offer - it would seem far more likely that Laxey would want to increase their shareholding in a further share issue as opposed to see it diluted.

 

They will want the people who presided over 20k non renewals gone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Struck me as rather strange too, Zappa. It should be pointed out that Laxey were also reported to be on board a year ago. Look how that turned out for King and company.

 

If referring to the letter of requisition (1/8/13) and what led up to the AGM in December of the same year, DK wasn't directly involved with the parties involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.