|
JakNife - 5 Jan'04 - 23:01 - 895 of 961
harvester,
Never mind. You are so right.I am living in a fantasy world (like you on the ADVFN bulletin board !). The big deals on the LSE are always signed and sealed even if that exposes the contracting parties to fraud prosecution. Nothing untoward happened years ago in the Guiness scandal. They were simply put in prison for their own protection to escape irate shareholders.
In the Guiness case the particular directors took specific legal advice from their lawyers on a particular point of company law termed "financial assistance". At the specific point in time that they took that advice the legal community believed that, when the letter of the law was read, that it meant one particular thing (and that no law was being broken), the directors and lawyers also reasoned that the actions being taken were in the interests of shareholders. However, the court case (which went all the way to the House of Lords) clarified how people should interpret the letter of the law when it was read.
I am unsure of what relevance you think this legal case has to RSV? You don't appear to understand the basic legal principles and so I assume that you're not contending that in RSV's case there is a particular legal principle that has not been well enough defined by the courts such that it could be interpreted in more than one way?
MikeDP
Whether current Market Making Rules allow MMs the unlimited discretion to sell short in the hope of covering themselves later in the manner of the turkey-farmer cited by JakNife does, is in my opinion improbable in the extreme.
This is clearly not what I am suggesting. I am not suggesting that they merely "hoped" to cover themselves, I'm suggesting that they entered into a legally binding contract with a third party that perfectly hedged their position such that they were thus not short. It would help if you could identify the specific rule that you believe has been broken rather than speculate probabilities about whether such a rule may or may not exist.
Agincourt - 5 Jan'04 - 23:07 - 896 of 961
The rules are quite clear.
Shares may not be dealt in until they have been admitted by the LSE authorities. Before they can be admitted the shares must be properly issued by the company. Application must then be made to the LSE in the proper form and then they may, if approved, be admitted.
None of these things happened. That's it, it's a matter of fact. It is indisputable. Full stop.
JakNife is a Jakass
JakNife - 5 Jan'04 - 23:14 - 897 of 961
Good evening Agincourt. Have you had a chance to check your company secretarial guide yet to confirm the point in time when a share buyer becomes a shareholder and thus legally entitled to vote?
Given your misunderstanding on this earlier point, which is a much simpler one to understand than the point that you are confusing here, then there seems little point in discussing technical detail with you.
However, if you could confirm that you have clarified the point of when a share buyer becomes legally entitled to vote, then once we have closure on that point we can move onto your new subject.
Agincourt - 5 Jan'04 - 23:16 - 898 of 961
You have no answer to my last post do you JakAss. Ah well !
Agincourt - 5 Jan'04 - 23:16 - 899 of 961
MM's paying you double time for tonight I hope.
easymoney03 - 5 Jan'04 - 23:36 - 900 of 961
wish they were paying me double time id f..k them hard
Haystack - 6 Jan'04 - 00:58 - 901 of 961
This is an interestig thread.
Anomalous - 6 Jan'04 - 02:16 - 902 of 961
THAT'S GAME, SET AND MATCH TO AGINCOURT.
Sorry Jacko, but you just ignored his winning stroke and claimed it was out. The umpire (the public) knows it was in.
Jacko when are you going to admit that you are wrong? The MMs traded shares that did not exist. They were fake ostriches, they had not even been laid, let alone hatched!
We're pleased that you are dropping the MMs even further into the do do, but they've done enough damage to themselves already, without you making it worse for them. I hope your 'employer' doesn't read some of your posts, as he will probably want his money back. Especially when the men in grey suits start turning up to take away the documents very early in the morning.
Big question for you, have you made YOUR 'exit strategy' yet?, You see mud tends to stick and if you try flinging it at other people (like the 3rd party you mentioned) they may take it personally and try to fling some back at you!
You see, Mr Abbey provided us with his telephone number. And even if he's not available, one of 'his' stooges may decide to call you bluff, about your serious accusation that they committed an act of insider trading. I wonder how much they can extract from your pocket for libel. Probably a lot. This sounds like a case of someone 'throwing stones in a greenhouse'.
Be very careful. They have the money to make you suffer. If you accuse them, you had better be sure of your 'facts'. Because most of the 'information' you've posted so far is fiction. Let's see some proof that the MM's had a 3rd party contract before you make this a 'fact'
Where's your evidence that Shore Capital purchased from Evolution? We have evidence that Shore Capital didn't deliver shares. We have letters which prove it. What do you have to verify your 'wild' accusations. What do you have to back it up? Have you spoken with the MMs? Have you seen their contracts? Have you PROOF beyond doubt that this wild theory has some foundation.
You've given us nothing but fiction and tried to back it up with pseudo legal justification. Whenever someone makes a strong legal point, you immediately try miss-direction by refering to another dispute held earlier. You refuse to admit the point by claiming that you need closure on 'other issues' before moving on.
If you are so good at debating, why do you keep moving off the point. Both harvester and MikeDP made excellent posts yesterday and today to show that you refuse to admit that the MMs sold fake shares. That is one of their crimes. It's not the only crime, but is certainly one of the biggest. They exposed the weakness of the London Market and embarassed them in front of the world.
Our lawyers, (and the LSE) are reading your postings and laughing at you. You are not helping your credibility on the ADVFN boards by acting so irresponsibly. Your also exposing yourself to some serious legal action. I hope you are good at litigation, because you are cr*p at debating on this BB.
Let's see some proof of your accusations
jmillskeel - 6 Jan'04 - 10:11 - 903 of 961
Dont forget intracast 11am
JakNife - 6 Jan'04 - 10:30 - 904 of 961
Good morning Agincourt
Let me repeat my previous comment: if you could confirm that you have clarified the point of when a share buyer becomes legally entitled to vote, then once we have closure on that point we can move onto your new subject.
And good morning to you Anomalous
You claimed at 819:
“In fact, we will be contacting the appropriate people to have your details checked. As you know, it is an offence under the COMC to spread lies. It's called a False and Misleading Impression. I'm sure that the FSA would like to investigate this as well. Especially if the evidence does point in the direction of the MMs or one of their cohorts.”
Could you please confirm that you have now done this and thus confirmed that I have NO connection with the MMs whatsoever? When you have done this and provided the appropriate apology then I feel that we may be able to move on.
“Let's see some proof of your accusations”
I don’t need to prove them and have already told you that I can’t in much the same way that you can’t prove yours. However, I am providing you with a much more believable theory that the B.S. that you are currently circulating. At the end of the day though, if you want to believe your own B.S. then so be it, it’s up to you to prove your accusations in court.
“We have evidence that Shore Capital didn't deliver shares. We have letters which prove it.”
And that’s ALL that you have, you have then made a wild and irrational leap of logic and decided that they therefore MUST have shorted the stock that is WRONG.
As I’ve already explained (more than once) there is more than one theory that fits this fact pattern. Their failure to deliver shares could quite rationally and easily be explained if somebody else has failed to deliver shares to them on the other side. In this case then Shore Capital would not have “shorted” shares at all. This would then fit in clearly with the comments that Shore Capital have made to you that they “have no position”.
If perhaps you took one second to think about this then you might be able to see why the guy at Shore Capital is so frustrated with you you’ve gone off on a wild crusade against their firm without bothering to confirm your facts. You’ve immediately leapt to an assumption that Shore Capital MUST be “evil scum of the earth shorters” because that is the answer that you want. And yet here’s a perfectly sensible and simple explanation that could exonerate them of this claim. It’s a shame that you haven’t bothered to get any professional legal advice on this case, a decent lawyer would be able to help identify errors in your analysis like this one.
“Our lawyers, (and the LSE) are reading your postings and laughing at you. You are not helping your credibility on the ADVFN boards by acting so irresponsibly. Your also exposing yourself to some serious legal action. I hope you are good at litigation, because you are cr*p at debating on this BB.”
I’m glad that you think that I’m providing them with such hilarity. Perhaps you could also ask them if they’d meet my fees for this free legal commentary. I note your empty threats, from their tone I assume that you were the school bully. I have yet to see bully-boys succeed against a well prepared, rational, logical legal team.
Happy new year
Jack Knife
MikeDP - 6 Jan'04 - 10:35 - 905 of 961
JakNife
You ask me
Which Rule do you think has been broken ?
I Dont Know. I Cant Find Out. Thats the principle that is so offensive.
If I enter a contract with a builder to build me a house and work doesn't start I can ask. If his answer is "The bricks haven't come" I can check.If I find that they haven't come because he didn't order them and has spent my deposit on his daughters wedding then the rules broken include theft and fraud.
If he was late placing the order or the brickworks is on strike or the truth is he hasn't got planning consent then those are quite different matters to be dealt with differently. If he simply refuses to answer I can get another builder, BUT if I have no means of pursuing the issue I am entitled to assume the worst and enevitably will do so.
The system for trading shares is such that I have no choice of trading partner and the retail broker I use is prohibited even from telling me who he is.
All I can see is that large numbers of bargains have defaulted after a period of a week in which MMs collectively processed more than 3 times the issued share capital.
Shareholders in RSV with shares or with failed bargains have an obvious concern but so do all the rest of us have legitimate concern about the consequences of this kind of activity upon their shareholdings and the companies they own or invest in.
Its simply not enough that there may or may not be a statement from the FSA/LSE explaining matters at some indeterminate future date.
It is now over 2 months since the events occurred and we are as much in the dark as we were at the outset. Perhaps my being in the dark doesn't count for much but that the RSV shareholders are in that same position certainly does matter.
The evidence that does exist suggests that LSE/FSA is simply concerned with "restoring an orderly market" so that the trading suspension may be lifted and the inference is that the underlying reasons and activities may be whitewashed or concealed.
Everyone will continue to think the worst until there is a proper explanation.
As I said previously the private or retail investor is bound to blame the party with whom he has prime contact. Common sense rules out the local brokers with whom we trade and blaming the MMs therefore encompasses the whole system behind them and all the possibilities for wrong-doing within it.
Like a few others on this board I have found your explanations of possible activity behind the scenes of considerable interest, but the fact remains that it is all entirely speculative and certainly cannot be used to exonerate anybody. I really cannot understand why you present your arguments in ways that suggest there may be no case to answer.
martinwj - 6 Jan'04 - 10:38 - 906 of 961
Well if you tell us who you are and what your motive is then i'm sure we'll take what you have to say a lot more seriously. Until then we'll assume you're working against us. Fair?
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 10:44 - 907 of 961
JakKnife
You said:
“We have evidence that Shore Capital didn't deliver shares. We have letters which prove it.”
And that’s ALL that you have, you have then made a wild and irrational leap of logic and decided that they therefore MUST have shorted the stock that is WRONG.
You then went on to offer various explanations of what might have happened adding that each of your secenarios were possible or even probable.
I have tried to be accurate here in reporting what you just said.
BUT
At the start you said "that is WRONG". That was a clear statement, not an opinion. Tell me Jaknife - How do you KNOW?
JakNife - 6 Jan'04 - 10:51 - 908 of 961
MikeDP,
I understand where you're coming from and I thank you for an eloquent reply. But I would like to question your comment here:
JakNife:Which Rule do you think has been broken ?
MikeDP"I Dont Know. I Cant Find Out."
I'm pretty sure that the AIM listing rules are available online and so you could find out if you read them. I've tried to find them quickly at the FSA's site here:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk
but couldn't see them quickly. I know that the main market's rules are there because I had cause to download them recently.
If you could identify which of the AIM rules you think has been broken then we would have something to debate.
Before signing off for the day, I'd just like to quickly remind people yet again - the AIM market has different rules than the the main market. AIM is specifically more lightly regulated than the main market and carries a warning to that effect.
JakNife - 6 Jan'04 - 10:58 - 909 of 966
Hello Agincourt
Might I get a your comments on voting entitlement? Could you confirm that you have clarified the point of when a share buyer becomes legally entitled to vote? At settlement.
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 10:44 - 907 of 908
Anon:”We have evidence that Shore Capital didn't deliver shares. We have letters which prove it.”
JakNife"And that’s ALL that you have, you have then made a wild and irrational leap of logic and decided that they therefore MUST have shorted the stock that is WRONG.
Agincourt"At the start you said "that is WRONG". That was a clear statement, not an opinion. Tell me Jaknife - How do you KNOW?"
You can either consider this to be a grammatical question Agincourt or one of logic.
Does “We have evidence that Shore Capital didn't deliver shares. We have letters which prove it.”
imply "they therefore MUST have shorted the stock" ?
The answer is "no", as I have provided a simple explanation that shows that
“We have evidence that Shore Capital didn't deliver shares. We have letters which prove it.”
could imply "another party has defaulted on delivering stock to them"
As a consequence I am certain that the original sentence was logical flawed and therefore WRONG.
martinwj - 6 Jan'04 - 10:58 - 910 of 966
Oh I think I've worked out that Jaknife is/was known as KevinRTaylor and I remember him boring me rigid on the My Travel board a year or so ago. He's an investment banker apparently.
martinwj - 6 Jan'04 - 11:17 - 911 of 966
if this is the same person it would explain a lot:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:3xftKNMrso8J:setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/user _profile/profile_country_United_Kingdom_39.html+Jaknife&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 11:32 - 912 of 966
JakNife
It's time you just gave up.
You have next to no room left.
You can not answer my questions.
It is quite clear that voting rights are acquired by the shareholder at the moment he completes the contract with his broker. If you think otherwise you should buzz off and do your homework before you continue on here.
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 11:37 - 913 of 966
so he is a Kevin after all - probably wears white socks.
MikeDP - 6 Jan'04 - 12:06 - 914 of 966
Anyone interested in DYOR could log in to TMF and having done so enter JakNife in the Bulletin Board Authors search.
If you research more deeply and read some of his 4400 posts since August 1999 you will probably conclude as I have that he is most unlikely to be anybody's paid agent or stooge.
> Agincourt. Since you are so convinced about voting rights I wont argue with you but I know as a recent plc Director that COMPANY Articles of Association specify the Registrars List as the one and only proof of eligibility to vote. So obviously there is a very serious mismatch between you and the articles to say the least.
vanhalen - 6 Jan'04 - 12:57 - 915 of 966
I have today received a letter from Halifax Sharedealing .....
May i take this opportunity to quote the opening paragraphs of the letter
I write to notify you that due to a shortage of stock in the market, your trade has 'not' been settled and the company has been suspended from trading since 22 October 2003.
Due to the significant shortselling in the market .............
"They took my money" ....... "They stole my money" ...... "The bastards robbed me in broad daylight" ...... "The LSE watched as they stole my money"
harvester - 6 Jan'04 - 12:59 - 916 of 966
MikeDP:
another excellent post from you in (905). I find the analysis of the situation presented by you in that post and many other posts before most sound and reliable.
I also agree that we should give JaKnife the benefit of the doubt re whom or what he represents and why. I still think the MM's should send him a Xmas present for having spent so much time and effort to defend their position.
On the other hand, may be the RSV Group also should send him a wee present for having highlighted possible weaknesses of their case which might come under attack and need beefing up by hard evidence and sound reasoning.
Perhaps he even deserves a medal (a figure of an alien with his spaceship might be suitable motif ?) for having slogged it out against overwhelming waves of BB attacks and having the courage to stick to his "guns" . That does not mean that I agree with his reasoning but it has helped to sustain a lively debate on here and has kept the RSV shareholder grievances in the limelight.
Jacko is right that close attention must be paid to the LSE market rules, company law etc which applies to this situation. So if someone can provide a link to the AIM rules and better still the relevant parts of those rules that would be useful.
I notice with interest jacko's remark: "Before signing off for the day, I'd just like to quickly remind people yet again - the AIM market has different rules than the the main market. AIM is specifically more lightly regulated than the main market and carries a warning to that effect."
Jacko is very keen to score a point on "voting rights". I give him a half point on that one but refer him to my earlier post outlining a broader view (868).
P.S. missed the show since not set up for intercast yet. Perhaps somebody can tell us the highlights of the discussion .
PPS: Jacko earlier asked me what fantasy world do I live in. Obviously on another planet but I don't know which one since I am not a member of the Planetary Society and my mother never told me. All I do know is that it's a very strange planet. There seem to be a lot of ostriches about on the planet I live on, especially many fake ones ! :-) :-)
Intercast (ADVFN) - 6 Jan'04 - 13:03 - 917 of 966
vanhalen, very sorry to read that last post - as we said on the Intercast today, we all hope that the truth is revealed and that justice is done.
This post is to say a big thank you to Anomalous for taking the time to come on the Intercast and tell us his side of the story. We will do our best to raise awareness of the issue where we can, and hope you will keep us up to date on the latest happenings.
Thank you
PatriciaB
vanhalen - 6 Jan'04 - 13:05 - 918 of 966
Many thanks PatriciaB ........ We are all grateful for your interest in the matter
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 13:09 - 919 of 966
MikeDP
Re Voting. You need to do some research into how Crest actually works.
MikeDP - 6 Jan'04 - 13:21 - 920 of 966
> Harvester
Thank you for your kind remarks. Without wanting to start a mutual admiration society I'll just say I've found your postings pretty helpful and thought-provoking also.
You can go to FSA.gov.uk and download reams of stuff including Guidelines, Handbook, Definitions etc.
I did this a while back and am steadily ploughing through them.
You can also download a document from londonstockexchange.co.uk which explains their rules and the rules to be followed by LSE Members in trading and settling transactions.
Neither is particularly easy to search especially if you dont thoroughly understand the jargon eg I spent ages looking for "delayed trade" without success until I learned the proper jargon is "block trade facility" and even that may be only part of the story.
abitgreen - 6 Jan'04 - 13:25 - 921 of 966
Harvestor you haven't seen a beagle in amongst the Ostriches have you by chance?
Yours
Prof Colin Pillinger
JakNife - 6 Jan'04 - 13:30 - 922 of 966
Agincourt
It is quite clear that voting rights are acquired by the shareholder at the moment he completes the contract with his broker. If you think otherwise you should buzz off and do your homework before you continue on here.
I'm sorry that you still believe this. Your dogged determination to hang onto this point of view when I have already explained it beyond doubt does not serve justice to your claim to be a "professional".
I assume that you must have missed my previous comment at 711 and so I repeat them just for you. Please let me know when you have read them and exactly which point you disagree with.......
The CREST system is highly efficient and works upon the basis of Delivery Versus Payment ("DVP"). On the settlement date cash is debited from the nominee's account and shares are credited to the nominee's account. At that precise moment in time the electronic register is updated and the nominee's name appears on the share register. The share buyer is only legally entitled to vote when the shareholder register is updated; "settlement" is universally recognised as meaning the date when the shareholder register is updated. It should be common sense that as a practical matter a share buyer cannot exercise their voting rights until their name is on the share register otherwise how does the company know who can vote?
But let me put this particular issue beyond doubt. To do so I will refer you to one piece of legislation and the CREST Reference Manual. You may find the legislation here, it is entitled The Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1995:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19953272_en_1.htm
You will find the CREST Reference Manual here:
http://www.crestco.co.uk/home/home.html#/publications/reference/man_intro.html
The Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1995 are the regulations enacted by the Government that allow for shares to be transferred in electronic form and for the other necessary mechanisms to deal electronically with those matters that would previously have been dealt with in paper form. If you wish to understand the legislation then you should probably read all of the above. However, I will draw upon only one section to put this particular issue beyond reasonable doubt.
34 Notices of Meetings
See: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19953272_en_6.htm#mdiv34
"(1) For the purposes of determining which persons are entitled to attend or vote at a meeting, and how many votes such persons may cast, the participating issuer may specify in the notice of the meeting a time, not more than 48 hours before the time fixed for the meeting, by which a person must be entered on the relevant register of securities in order to have the right to attend or vote at the meeting.
(2) Changes to entries on the relevant register of securities after the time specified by virtue of paragraph (1) shall be disregarded in determining the rights of any person to attend or vote at the meeting, notwithstanding any provisions in any enactment, articles of association or other instrument to the contrary."
In plainer English, paras 1 and 2 above explain that the Company inspects the share register at a specific time in order to determine who can vote. If a share purchaser’s name is not on the share register by that point in time then the share purchaser is quite simply not legally permitted to vote at the General Meeting.
Now in the case of RSV, it held its General Meeting on a Monday, hence it is irrelevant when the cut-off time was in the previous 48 hours since the previous 48 hours were a Saturday and Sunday. Consequently, if a share purchaser wanted to vote at the AGM then they would have had to have had their name on the share register at the close of business on Friday 17th October.
To complete this explanation I will now refer you to the CREST Reference Manual. You can download the manual in its entirety here, however I warn you that it is 325 pages long and so may take a while to download:
http://www.crestco.co.uk/publications/reference/manual/ref-manual-0903.pdf
Again, if you wish to be conversant in this subject then I recommend that you read the entirety of the manual. However, the only section that I will rely upon, in my explanation, is Chapter Five: Registration, this begins:
"The best available evidence of title to units of a CREST security is the register for that security. Title is transferred at the moment at which the units being transferred are debited from the register entry of the transferor and credited to the register entry of the transferee."
This in itself should be enough for you to understand that settlement is the time when a share purchaser becomes a shareholder and thus eligible to vote. But we wish to have this issue demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt so I will continue:
The question that we need to answer is WHEN IS THE REGISTER UPDATED?
The first page of Chapter 5 expands further:
"Simultaneously with the debits and credits to the relevant stock accounts, the CREST system generates a Register Update Request (RUR) for retrieval by the registrar."
The next page provides the final piece of this particular jigsaw:
Generation of RURs
At the point of settlement of the following transaction types, CREST generates an RUR:
Let me therefore summarise the above facts:
When making a purchase that is executed by CREST, CREST generates an RUR (Register Update Request) at the precise point in time when the transaction settles. It is at this point in time when the register is updated that a share purchaser becomes entitled to vote.
harvester - 6 Jan'04 - 13:32 - 923 of 966
Colin :
there are many strange creatures on this planet here but the ostriches have caught my attention since they are flapping about so much lately .
Now that you mention it , perhaps it's the fault of the beagle :-)
harvester - 6 Jan'04 - 13:36 - 924 of 966
Jacko:
so where is the section relating to the hijacked bus or other vote rigging ?
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 13:37 - 925 of 966
JakNife
I have read the Crest Manual in full many times thank you.
harvester - 6 Jan'04 - 13:42 - 926 of 966
Agin:
you have my sympathy.
I tried to read it but just at the point of nodding off had to put it down. Read a thriller instead :"Jack the Ripper" . :-)
gonzo123 - 6 Jan'04 - 13:48 - 927 of 966
Jaknife i don't hold any shares in what was rsv but i have been following the saga.I would like to ask one question of you and that is: Ignoring everything that has been posted, as you are more aware of what has happened than i am,in your opinion due you think the mm's behaved honestly and truthfully?
harvester - 6 Jan'04 - 13:58 - 928 of 966
MikeDP
thank you for the info .
Thank you for your kind comments.
It is important to know the law .
It is also important to use common sense and sound reasoning. The Courts will evaluate the whole of the evidence in a dispute and consider what is reasonable.
P.S. I must say :
I would not like to come up against you in a Court case, Mike.
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 13:58 - 929 of 966
I have read it and understood it - which JakNife clearly doesn't.
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 15:30 - 930 of 966
Gonzo
Very good question. He can't answer it. Too many words he doesn't understand.
Like honestly and truthfully.
Also, a bit of a complex moral question for him.
gonzo123 - 6 Jan'04 - 15:56 - 931 of 966
Agincourt i will wait until he responds. How he responds,if at all, will be a undeniable reflection on him as a person.Is he a stand up and be counted guy or a five knuckle shuffling weasel?
JakNife - 6 Jan'04 - 18:26 - 932 of 966
Hello Agincourt,
I have read it and understood it - which JakNife clearly doesn't.
I note that you are unable to identify a specific flaw in the analysis. That's hardly surprising given that I took a second opininion from a Slaughter & May partner who confirmed that it was accurate. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to know that, as a chartered accountant, you are unlikely to be misadvising companies or individuals on matters of company law such as the above.
gonzo123
in your opinion due you think the mm's behaved honestly and truthfully?
I don't believe that this question can be conclusively answered by ANY of us on this board but you only ask for an opinion, which I would confirm is "yes - until proved otherwise".
The very nature of the UK legal system is that people are innocent until proved guilty and it is quite clear to me, and should be quite clear to anyone with legal experience, that the evidence presented so far is not even slightly conclusive of guilt. Far from it, to my mind the action group's poorly justified malignment of the MMs attaches more guilt to the action group than the MMs.
It strikes me that some investors have come along and of their own volition put their hand in their pocket and asked to buy some shares. There has been a settement problem in delivering the physical stock and the MMs are trying to resolve that with the LSE/FSA.
However, based solely upon that settlement problem a group of investors have decided to malign the MMs and adopt a kangaroo-court/lynch-mob approach to justice, which should be unacceptable to any civilised person. They have concluded that the MMs MUST be guilty of "naked shorting" despite the lack of ANY conclusive evidence to prove the claim. Just because the MMs have had problems supplying physical stock does not automatically imply that they were shorting, it could very simply mean that a third party has failed to supply physical stock to them - I have suggested that such a third party might be Chiddingfold.
It also turns out that many of the investors who bought the stock have since admitted that they don't actually have the appropriate experience to be buying AIM shares to begin with and yet others have indicated that they only bought the shares to get their "name in lights" because they owned 3%+ of the stock. I fail to see why these people should now be compensated for their own mistakes.
vanhalen - 6 Jan'04 - 18:31 - 933 of 966
Call me thick jak ..... but i have a letter here on my desk that i received today. And in plain english the content clearly states the shares that 'I' bought are 'not' in my account.
Can you explain .... in plain english ... who is at fault here.
or is it me just being dim !!!
JakNife - 6 Jan'04 - 18:50 - 934 of 966
The market maker is at fault vanhalen because he has failed to deliver stock on time in accordance with your contractual agreement.
But that does NOT automatically mean that the market maker has shorted the shares. It is also possible (and I would suggest much more plausible) that the failure to deliver physical stock is because a third party has failed to deliver physical stock to the market maker. In which case the problems started at the third party and not at the market-maker. And in that case it is wrong to claim that the market-maker has shorting the stock.
PS: A blessed Epiphany to one and all.
Agincourt - 6 Jan'04 - 19:00 - 935 of 966
Etrade have comfirmed to me today that the shares I bought have not been delivered.
Any comments Jaknife.
They also confirmed that you are quite wrong about when voting rights are aquired by a shareholder in AIM stocks.
With regard to your answer to Vanhalen
You are totaly mendacious. You are without hope of redemption.
vanhalen - 6 Jan'04 - 19:02 - 936 of 966
"The market maker is at fault vanhalen" ............. Thankyou for your prompt and courteous reply !!!
gonzo123 - 6 Jan'04 - 19:16 - 937 of 966
Jaknife thankyou for answering my question.
JakNife - 6 Jan'04 - 20:36 - 938 of 966
Good evening Agincourt,
I find it strange that you are happy to take advice on a technical legal issue from barrow-boy brokers. I would have expected that a lawyer would be better placed to advise on such matters.
Given your reluctance to take appropriate legal advice I wish you the best of luck in your crusade - it seems that luck is all that you are relying upon.
JacK KniFe
MikeDP - 6 Jan'04 - 21:14 - 939 of 966
Jak
If you just read Agincourts statement again very slowly
It is quite clear that voting rights are acquired by the shareholder at the moment he completes the contract with his broker.
you will see that his barrow boy broker gave him the correct answer.
He might have added that he may be unable to use those rights for a few hours but the bbb wasn't asked that question.
For "completes" read "settles", good enough for bbb and me, although from other posts I'm not sure it was meant.
harvester - 7 Jan'04 - 00:26 - 940 of 966
Jaknife:
I have already acknowledged before and will say so again now, that credit should be given to you for debating these topics. Irritating as it no doubt is for the injured RSV shareholders to endure some of the legal platitudes peddled by you which aim to obstruct them, it does help their cause and helps to keep their grievances in the forefront of BB attention .
The question posed by Gonzo was one to test your moral fibre. A straightforward reply revealing your current believes in the matter was called for. Not a legalistic reply. This is not a Court room, only a discussion forum.
I notice that you have avoided a reply to Mike's skillful analysis in (905). You failed to notice that the discussion has moved on from the printed rules on voting rights. You have not addressed the question posed by me earlier if there are special situations where the standard rules do not apply but need a ruling by a Court in view of special background factors. I am not fully conversant with the law and financial rules which apply to thse situations. How could I be, having already confessed in reply to your suggestion that I do live in fantasyland on another planet (don't quote me on it until I find out the name of the planet). All I do know for sure is that the town here is called Ostrichville , the town is full of the birds and the citizens are confused which of the birds are native and which other have been planted on them.
Sound familiar? Anything like that happen where you live? Do the special rules you enthuse about throw some light on it?
you said above :
"In the Guiness case the particular directors took specific legal advice from their lawyers on a particular point of company law termed financial assistance . At the specific point in time that they took that advice the legal community believed that, when the letter of the law was read, that it meant one particular thing (and that no law was being broken), the directors and lawyers also reasoned that the actions being taken were in the interests of shareholders. However, the court case (which went all the way to the House of Lords) clarified how people should interpret the letter of the law when it was read."
So is that why you took specific legal advice from "Slaughter & May"? Hold on a minute. That's hardly unbiased. Imagine if you were an ostrich or a turkey and they threatened to sling you in the frying pan. Would you wish to rely on lawyers called "Slaughter and May"? The turkeys I talked to also had doubts since they read an article in the Sunday Times(4/1/04) entitled:
"Victorian survivor Slaughter & May is a Law onto itself" .
Beyond the law, eh ?
Interesting point of law, though: "financial assistance "? Elegant phrase. Known by other words as bribe, inducement, backhander .... ? Clever lawyers working out that it meant one thing: quite. And in the interest of shareholders?
Now that puzzles me a little.
So the law needs interpretation even though the lawyers all knew exactly what it said or what they wanted it to say?
Is that a fact? Or is it a "fact".
Now in some recent financial press columns it has been said that short-selling is not a recognised trading method covered by the existing financial rules. So, short-selling & fake ostriches do not exist. Jacko
has been right all along. My mistake. I thought since there were so many ostriches floating about, they can't all be real. Not so. They are all real. All the ones you can see are real. The law does not allow any others, so they do not exist.
Unless, unless they are somewhere else and they have to be imported to make up the numbers of those supposed to be there but for some reason have vanished. Not to worry. Now that we know that they are real and that they are out there somewhere, it is only a matter of searching and finding them. I am nearly with you Jacko.
Now you suggested to put this matter to rest once and for all. Suits me. May I make a little suggestion. I caught two ostriches here. One looks fresh and real. The other looks lifeless and dodgy. Are they both real. Well, they must be if the lawyers say so, but in the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So why don’t we put them in separate saucepans and see what delicious meals we may get. Are you with me Jacko? Sorry, I am cheating a little here since I tried the dodgy one and “ouch”, I can’t get it down my throat.
So you see, there are laws and “laws” and then there is common sense
And when common sense tells you that something is not real
And the law suggests that it should be real,
Then the law may need a little help by interpretation to make sure that it does not fly in the face of common sense which is the law of the common man. Take it from me. It’s a fact.
Now if you can just tear yourself away from the law-books and listen to the common man He will tell you: If it looks like an ostrich and squawks like an ostrich and tastes like an ostrich Then it probably is an ostrich for real.
Now do you want the common man to teach you how to distinguish a fake ostrich from a real ostrich without cooking and eating it?
The real ones just stick their heads in the sand. The fake ones are often buried so deep, You can hardly see them. That’s why the RSV shareholders have a problem. They can’t eat their ostriches because they can’t even find them. So don’t tell them nothing is wrong.
Get a life. Get real.
braeden - 7 Jan'04 - 05:37 - 941 of 966
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 08:22 - 942 of 966
Good morning harvester
I notice that you have avoided a reply to Mike's skillful analysis in (905).
I have replied at 908.
You failed to notice that the discussion has moved on from the printed rules on voting rights.
Agincourt still does not appear to understand how the rules work.
You have not addressed the question posed by me earlier if there are special situations where the standard rules do not apply but need a ruling by a Court in view of special background factors.
My apologies if I have missed the question - the answer is no except there have been disputes where specific contract clauses have needed clarifying/confirming by the courts.
So is that why you took specific legal advice from "Slaughter & May"?
I asked one of the partners whilst discussing something else. The question was on voting rights and not on the Guiness case.
Interesting point of law , though : "financial assistance "?
Elegant phrase . Known by other words as bribe, inducement, backhander .... ?
It strikes me that you don't appear to be familiar with the phrase "financial assistance" since you are mis-describing it. It is none of the things that you state, it is simply the circumstances in which a company can buy back its own shares or take actions that effectively do the same.
So don’t tell them nothing is wrong.
Yes, there is something wrong - the people who bought the shares made a poor investment decision and it was solely their decision. They and they alone are responsible for their investment decisions, they need to accept that responsibility squarely and stop trying to evade it.
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 10:08 - 943 of 966
jak
"the people who bought the shares made a mistake and it was their mistake"
you are becoming frankly ridiculous; for you to assert that the "people" who made a "mistake" in this saga were the "investors" is just plain stupid. If no other party, whether mm, 3rd party (or whoever according to your alternative theories) made a "mistake" then why HAVEN’T shares been delivered??..which they haven’t as even you have accepted. So how could investors who’ve paid their money have made a "mistake" when they fulfilled their side of the bargain??...
im sure a man of your legal training, who has always been so precise about choice of words would only use specific words which meant precisely what you meant, so please now dont try and say you meant "bad investment decision" instead of "mistake" coz they dont mean the same thing. Your selective blindness, which leads you to believe that only the investors have made a "mistake" in this case, should i hope demonstrate the degree to which you should be listened to.
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 10:14 - 944 of 966
Apologies for the slack wording Paul, I have amended it.
Jonck - 7 Jan'04 - 10:18 - 945 of 966
.
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 10:23 - 946 of 966
Apology accepted, logged, filed and stored for future use!
matto - 7 Jan'04 - 10:26 - 947 of 966
vanhalen - was there any indication in the letter you received about what action might be taken by them/you?
martinwj - 7 Jan'04 - 10:34 - 948 of 966
jaknife.....if it was the investors mistake, why are the mm's offering me a 10% profit on my investment. One reason and one reason alone. They have broken the rules and are having to pay for it.
vanhalen - 7 Jan'04 - 10:59 - 949 of 966
Matto ..... i have two options
1. A full cash refund to the amount paid for the trades
2. A cash payment of 11.2p per share
Offers are derogitory and will not be accepting
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 11:23 - 950 of 966
martinwj,
"if it was the investors mistake, why are the mm's offering me a 10% profit on my investment. One reason and one reason alone. They have broken the rules and are having to pay for it."
That is an entirely flawed analysis that does not logically flow. You have started off with "the MMs are offering me a 10% profit" and then concluded that they are therefore guilty of something. It is a good thing that the courts do not follow such lynch-mob justice as it is clearly not any form of civilised justice.
The LSE/FSA have agreed an offer in conjunction with ALL parties involved. How do you know that the LSE/FSA haven't agreed a deal whereby another party is compensating the MMs for their loss? How do you know that the MMs aren't actually taking advantage of the offer to themselves make a claim for compensation from another party? You don't and therefore, in the absence of proof to the contrary, natural justice should prevail and the MMs should be "innocent, until proved guilty".
martinwj - 7 Jan'04 - 11:42 - 951 of 966
because my contract was with the mm's and not anyone else. they have not delivered the shares and are therefore guilty of not fulfilling their side of the bargain. Simple. If someone let the mm down then thats their problem, not mine. Law of Contract.
Say I have exchanged contracts to buy a property. On completion day, the person who I had arranged to get a mortgage from lets me down. The vendor is not interested in that. He just holds me to my part of the contract and sues me. Simple. I am guilty of breaking the contract.
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 12:01 - 952 of 966
I agree with what you're posting now martinwj so perhaps I simply misunderstood the meaning of your previous comment
The "Law of Contract", when combined with Tort would suggest that the appropriate compensation would be either (a) specific performance, or (b) actual provable loss.
If (b) in your case is a 10% profit then contractually/in tort they are paying more then they need to. Presumably this is because they have a corresponding deal with another party who has indemnified them?
MikeDP - 7 Jan'04 - 12:25 - 953 of 966
I think people are losing sight of the real issue a bit by focussing on the failure to settle fake ostriches so I'm just going to post this entirely fictional tale to make sure the basic principles are not forgotten.
BEGIN:
A couple of years ago I lent £1M to a company at standard interest.
Now they cannot make the interest payments and I can see that if I demand my money back they will go broke and I shall get little or nothing after the receivers have done.
What Shall I do?
I know I'll get the company to issue new shares in exchange for my £1M
Then when I sell them, anything I get will be offsetting my losses, much better than nothing!
Second Thoughts:
If I can get someone to cover me I can short sell my shares, even before the arrangement is made at a much higher price. Alternatively I can make some off exchange deal with large shareholders to do it for me. (I better put this hand before I start negotiations to avoid being accused of any insider dealing, but if theres a problem, rumours of a deal denied should allow me to close at a profit)
Obviously I will have to close the short position at some stage but if the dilution is very high the price should fall like a stone when the placing is announced. It is also obvious that such large scale shorting activity will distort the market price of the share, and because it is undisclosed must work to the disadvantage of all holders and Investors (except me of course but I'm in control)
What I can’t cover and sell short before the placing is announced I will sell at the first possible moment after the placing is announced preferably before the investors at large are aware of it. This seems to me to be 3 days before the AGM when some Market Market is prepared to sell for me even though the issue is not approved.
The practicalities of the arrangement in my opinion would require the connivance if not the direct and active involvement of at least one Market Making broker.
The main thing that stands between me and certain gains is the opinion of most investors that what I have done is completely wrong and abusive. Of course they think that because whatever gain I make must come out of their pockets. LSE/FSA focus on the benefit my action will bring to small struggling companies in keeping them alive and are therefore more tolerant of my approach and have so far refused to stamp on it completely. Keeping it all quiet is therefore highly desireable or essential.
I may or may not actually have infringed the odd FSA guideline or two but on previous occasiuons I know that such infringements have been either ignored or have been unproveable.
Actually theres a second thing that stands between me and success and thats the "stupid, ignorant" punters who go on buying when they should be selling so that I end up short and can’t close out as profitably as planned. Initially my reaction is to withdraw completely but then realise its too late and go ahead anyway to minimise embarassment to the others I may have involved with me.
END:
If it were simply that settlement could not be made because of a computer error or some similar honest mistake RSV investors would simply be offered their money back take it or leave it.
It is the possibility that something of the kind described above may have happened which justifies a premium to any settlement offer.
However if I revert to being storyteller once again:
"Great! If I can fob off a few punters who ended up short with a paltry 10%, then set that against my gains and lets see where the next ailing company is. Be a bit more careful not to get caught out next time"
Unless it all comes out no assessment of fair compensation can be made, nor in the absence of information on these activities can ordinary shareholders assess whether they have suffered a loss as a result of the activity.
martinwj - 7 Jan'04 - 12:29 - 954 of 966
jaknife...the difference is due to me losing my chance to take up the open offer, which they say they have valued independently. I think you're on a wild goose chase with this third party thing as if that was the case we have a problem with the chinese walls do we not?
MikeDP - 7 Jan'04 - 12:36 - 955 of 966
JakNife
If (b) in your case is a 10% profit then contractually/in tort they are paying more then they need to. Presumably this is because they have a corresponding deal with another party who has indemnified them?
Against what has this other party indemnified them? And why pass it on if the recipients have no right to it?
Or do you actually mean that the other party wants them to pass it on for some reason?
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 13:06 - 956 of 966
Against what has this other party indemnified them? And why pass it on if the recipients have no right to it?
It would be a standard contractual clause to have something along the lines of:
"If you fail to deliver stock to us then you will indemnify us against any costs that we may incur as a consequence of that failure meaning that we are unable to provide stock to other parties." - written in legalese obviously
The idea is that in this way any indemnity payments that the MM has to make to retail punters are passed through and reimbursed by the third-party.
I note your story at 953, it doesn't seem to require a comment other than to note that it is a sensationalised fictional account which may or may not bear any resemblance to what has actually happened. Perhaps you favour simply shooting the MMs rather than hanging then? After all, what's the point in asking them for their side of the story?
harvester - 7 Jan'04 - 13:43 - 957 of 966
Is Mike getting a bit too close to the truth, Jacko?
Even you don't deny that it is a possibility. Neither Mike(I presume) nor I favour shooting the MM's (at this stage!). We want them to tell their side of the story. But there only is "deafening" silence from them. So if they are not willing to come out and spill the beans then we want a Court (a legitimate one, not a lynch mob Court) to make them talk.
Yes, the English law rightly imposes a presumption of innocence. Sometimes (say if you see a man standing over a body, gun with dripping blood in his hand; shouting: I am glad I got the bastard; more sensational fiction !) it is hard to maintain the presumption of innocence.
"You have the right to remain silent ...." . Quite, so what's the point in talking if they are guilty. Perhaps, somebody should offer them some "financial assistance". The City boys tend to respond to that.
MikeDP - 7 Jan'04 - 14:02 - 958 of 966
The idea is that in this way any indemnity payments that the MM has to make to retail punters are passed through and reimbursed by the third-party.
This sounds like circular argument really.
If the MMs pay the punters what they have to, I understand that some 3rd party could fully indemnify the MMs if and as appropriate, but why that leads to paying the punter more than strictly necessary still escapes me.
what's the point in asking them for their side of the story?
No point whatever if they decline to answer.
They've had ample opportunity to give their side of the story and I believe would and should have done so had they been able to do it without admission of some wrongdoing.
I do favour the inquisitorial approach to issues such as this having watched the US Senate investigation of the ENRON Officers and the like. The Fifth Amendment is a wonderful device for locating the guilty and can make subsequent proving that much easier.
harvester - 7 Jan'04 - 14:05 - 959 of 966
JaKnife
with respect to your post (942) I briefly reply:
your post (908) does not adequately deal with Mike's post (905).
"the answer is no except ...." except when there is breach of implied contract terms or criminal interference, perhaps ??
I am familiar with legitimate financial assistance. I have also heard of "financial assistance" given by notes in a brown envelope. Of course, in the City the envelopes would be white with silk lining. By the way, what is the legalese phrase for "scam".
Never heard of it?
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 14:15 - 960 of 966
MikeDP
"This sounds like circular argument really.
If the MMs pay the punters what they have to, I understand that some 3rd party could fully indemnify the MMs if and as appropriate, but why that leads to paying the punter more than strictly necessary still escapes me."
The offer was determined by the LSE/FSA together with an independent expert. It is that offer that leads to the MMs paying the punters and it would be that number (plus legal costs) that would then feed into the indemnity clause between the MM and the third-party.
"what's the point in asking them for their side of the story?
No point whatever if they decline to answer."
I would remind you that Graham Shore of Shore Capital has spoken directly to the action group and has specifically said that Shore Capital has no material position. The action group chose to ignore that statement and continues to malign Shore Capital.
What's the point speaking to the action group when they don't listen? (And yes, this one is circular.)
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 14:20 - 961 of 966
And you believe Graham Shore? LOL
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 14:38 - 962 of 966
Yes Agincourt. I have no evidence to suggest that I shouldn't believe him and I strongly believe that a person should be considered innocent until proved guilty.
It seems more than perfectly reasonable to believe Shore because:
1. Shore Capital are only party to a small number of unsettled bargains, this seems to clearly suggest that they did not have a major role in any of the activities. These bargains could easily have arisen solely from normal trading.
2. There is a perfectly reasonable and sensible explanation as to why they do not have physical stock - that somebody else has failed to deliver stock to them. Perhaps Shore Capital entered into a MM to MM transaction with EVO who then failed to deliver stock to them?
Given the above it strikes me that the action group's claims with respect to Shore Capital are exactly as Graham Shore describes them: defamatory. Given this then it further strikes me that this is an example of how the action group appear prepared to break the law in order to achieve their own purposes of sensationalising a story beyond the truth.
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 14:43 - 963 of 966
JakNife
As a matter of interest, and for some entertainment I would like you to explain and rationalise this.
In October, within the relevent period for the compensation offer, I instructed Etrade to buy some RSV shares, and paid them instantly.
Etrade then, in December, issued me with a Letter of Representation at my request. Note - in December.
I asked Etrade several time during November and December if my shares had been delivered and asked them to confirm that they held shares in their nominee account. They, until yesterday, said that they had my shares because the "crest system" would automatically "look after it all". When I asked them to confirm, several times, that my shares were on the register they told me that they did not do that as they were a "commisssion only broker" and could provide no service beyond buying or selling shares for me and that they had no responsibility for ensuring that the shares were registered. Indeed in one telephone conversation they claimed that they had no way of knowing whether the shares had been registered.
Recently they Emailed me with "the offer" which assumed that my shares had neither been "settled" nor delivered. Naturally, I told them that I could not respond to the offer unless I knew that I qualified. "Had my shares been delivered or not" "Unless we knew that we could not proceed". At this point, yesterday, for the first time, they confirmed that my shares had not been delivered.
I still have my letter of representation which confirms that I am the beneficial owner of the shares.
Etrade have refused to tell me which Market Maker supplied my shares "owing to their obligation to them".
I have several times asked them what they think their obligations to me are. They are, so they tell me, to place the order for shares when I place one, if they can. After that they trust that Crest looks after everything. Once they have my money and have credited my account with the shares, thay have no further obligations.
That's it JakNife. Tell me how all this squares with your theories.
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 14:55 - 964 of 966
jaknife
re Shore Capital
If Shore Capital struck a deal with a client, to sell that client stock, then they should honour it.
IF they THOUGHT they could buy stock to honour it from this 3rd party, but then find they can’t, then they should have to go into the general market to acquire the stock they contracted to deliver and then deliver it. They may well have to pay more than they bargained for but in this way they would be acting honourably and fulfilling their side of a transaction in which their customer trusted them and was blameless.
They then have their OWN gripe with whoever let THEM down and would be able to claim losses from such a third party who had reneged on a deal, which I’m sure they would have had legal documentation to prove, or else they would have been acting fairly recklessly anyway. If Shore wished to act honourably or wished to be able to be viewed as blameless then this is surely what they should have done, especially as the number of deals with which they were involved is, according to you, so small.
I cannot see why any of these truly simple straightforward principles are so controversial for you, or for the MMs, the LSE, the FSA, or whoever
...and if the rules of the LSE DONT expect BOTH sides to a transaction to fulfil their positions then what are we all doing here in the first place!
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 15:03 - 965 of 966
It's hard to identify exactly what your question is Agincourt. But in any case I find it difficult to debate with somebody who, on the one hand, claims to be perfectly familiar with CREST such that they know the mechanics and legalities of exactly at what point an entitlement to vote is obtained; but then on the other hand, needs to call Etrade to ask them to explain those legalities. It troubles me that there is no easy way to reconcile the two.
Your conversation with Etrade confirms two points to me:
1. Etrade are borrow-boy brokers who are not suitably qualified to be providing legal opinions upon the technicalities of when a share buyer becomes entitled to vote.
Etrade then, in December, issued me with a Letter of Representation at my request. Note - in December.
"I still have my letter of representation which confirms that I am the beneficial owner of the shares."
2. That some of the people turned up to the AGM with what they thought were valid letters of representation but in fact they were invalid because the broker had made an error when issuing them. In this case I suggest that those people consider court action against their own broker for misleading them into thinking that they were entitled to vote when they actually weren't.
matto - 7 Jan'04 - 15:07 - 966 of 966
The position of the nominee brokers seems to need to be addressed.
I don't see how they can just walk away from the situation and not reveal the name of the MM. As I understand it MM's wont deal with ordinary punters so that's why we have brokers to buy shares on our behalf. I would think this makes the brokers equally liable if the shares aren't delivered. The contract for the shares must be between the broker and the individual concerned not between the MM and the individual (and I presume this is what Mr Shore is alluding to in the reported telephone conversation). The broker promises to deliver the shares upon payment to them. In tort the remedy for a broken contract is specific performance (the shares must be delivered) or compensation although the terms and conditions of the nominee brokers may limit compensation to the actual payment made.
The precise liabilities of the nominee brokers would also seem to have a bearing on who can accept the MMs offer. The nominees have a pool of shares(registered in their name) which (normally) corresponds to how many shares each individual owns. Is it possible for them in the situation where they do not have enough in the pool to say who does and does not have shares? Alternatively given that the contracts haven't been completed (between the nominee brokers and any individuals) is it not possible for the nominee brokers to take up the offer and then simply refund those whose contracts were not completed?
harvester - 7 Jan'04 - 15:12 - 967 of 1042
Agincourt:
very informative .
Don't expect too much from Jacko in reply to this even though it cries out for a sensible answer. As we all know by now he is very evasive and unlikely to admit to anything which does not suit his argument.
For future guidance to you and other nominee shareholders in a similar position there is a way to force the hand of the uncooperative stockbroker. Having paid for the shares and with settlement date gone you can withdraw the shares from the nominee account not for transfer to another nominee account but for transfer in certificated paper form into your name. That will incur a small admin fee but forces them to respond. No doubt they would try to stall and delay compliance with your request but you then strengthen your position and may force out some information which they are reluctant to divulge.
It appears from the above narrative of events that the stockbroker mistakenly issued a letter of representation to you . He should not have done so if there were no shares nominee-registered which specifically related to your unsettled purchase. The letters of representation should reflect the wishes of the beneficial owners of the nominee-registered shares . Right, Jacko?
So by issueing a letter of representation but later admitting to non-settlement the broker gave you early -on false information. It may have been a genuine error but an error all the same.
JakNife - 7 Jan'04 - 15:14 - 968 of 1042
PaulKent
You're missing at least two points:
1. It is perfectly possible that Shore Capital bought the stock in the market from retail punters who have failed to deliver stock to them. EG, somebody bought one week from EVO and sold a week later to Shore Capital. In that case, why are you punishing Shore Capital for the failure of the retail punter to deliver stock? Perhaps you think that Shore Capital should take the retail punter to court? You seem to be suggesting that the retail punter should compensate Shore Capital.
2. The action group are maligning Shore Capital by incorrectly calling them shorters and many other things on this board. That is probably defamatory regardless of who caused the settlement problems.
matto - 7 Jan'04 - 15:17 - 969 of 1042
JakNife may have a point in that in the period in question it would have been quite easy to sell shares one didn't actually own. e.g. I buy from EVO and sell to Shore but EVO never deliver them to my broker, so my broker can't give them to Shore ... Shore may well have no position in the stock at least in so far as they are owed as much stock as they owe. I for one am inclined to believe Mr Shore for now.
Just shows how sorry this whole episode is and how tougher regulation and/or real penalties are required.
martinwj - 7 Jan'04 - 15:26 - 970 of 1042
jaknife......
re shore capital..........if shore were not actively shorting but were trading normally and making mm to mm buys to cover their position.this would seem fair enough. But why doesn't Shore say that instead of saying that they have no position, which you seem to accept yourself cannot be the case. So come on Graham Shore why don't you say we were let down by EVO?
matto - 7 Jan'04 - 15:30 - 971 of 1042
Don't think that's likely martinwj.
It doesn't even have to be a MM-MM trade that has caught Shore out.
harvester - 7 Jan'04 - 15:30 - 972 of 1042
matto:
you raise a very crucial question:
"Is it possible for them (to identify beneficial retail owners) in the situation where they do not have enough in the pool to say who does and does not have shares?"
Jacko will answer that one. He sleeps with the Crest manual under his pillow.
From comments made before it would appear that each settlement is accompanied by an RR-U notice confirming settlement and " quasiautomatic" entry of the change of share ownership on the company register. It may be that the brokers bulked up several retail orders for one share-buy transaction in their nominee name. if so, they would have to combine the RRU notice of settlement with their own internal accounts information to identify if a specific retail customer had beneficial ownership rights and with respect to how many shares. It is clear to me that the nominee system of electronic trading has significantly weakened the retail customers rights and protections. It also makes them more vulnerable to scams such as naked short-sales. (sorry , those fake ostriches keep appearing whereever I look ).
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 15:31 - 973 of 1042
Thank you all.
The position, is indeed, pefectly clear, but as usual the humourless, gutless JakNife could not address it. At least not without treading on his master's toes which he dare not do. JaKnife's weakness is that he has to stick so rigidly to his master's line.
I doubt that he dare fart without permission.
His line on Shore Capital is just hilarious. He is so desperate to stick to the "MMs are innocent line" that he must constantly repeat "It is possible that". He is just incapable of admitting what the probability is, despite the face of the evidence.
Strange isn't it that in his view "the shareholders are guilty" line is a certainty. Whre is our innocence until proven guilty JakNife.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you would get your bottom smacked along with Knitwit if you ever conceded one tiny point.
Wheat a gutless drip you are JakNife.
Please, please JakNife when this gets to court, be there to give evidence for the MMs. The judge will laugh himself off his chair when you start.
The verdict. I can see the headlines now. "Judge in Contempt of Witness JakNife the Jakass"
martinwj - 7 Jan'04 - 15:31 - 974 of 1042
jaknife
You seem to know a lot about Shore Capital. Why not come clean and tell all you know?
vanhalen - 7 Jan'04 - 15:43 - 975 of 1042
Martinwj ..... behind the scenes, we already know :-)
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 15:48 - 976 of 1042
Ah well, I didn't need an answer from FakNife but was interested in what his response might be. It was as one might expect from him.
Poor JakNife, he is so constrained by his masters and his own narrow point of view that he has lost all sense of right and wrong, fairness, decency, irony or humour.
Judging from his answers and his general attitude he will be needing a long holiday soon. The strain is telling. It must be awful having to talk bollocks for a living.
Poor JakNIfe, one is tempted to be kind to him, but I think not. If he had any guts he would just tell his masters to stuff their silly job. But then, there is the motgage top think of isn't there JakNife.
There must be a word for someone who talks bollocks for a living. What could it be?
harvester - 7 Jan'04 - 15:51 - 977 of 1042
Agincourt:
having read what happened to you I have much sympathy for your position and agree that you and many RSV shareholders have been wronged. However, don't make it easier for Jacko to fault your argument by directing critique in the wrong direction. Shore Capital are at worst peripheral to the scam of short-selling and I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they were caught up in a situation which was not of their making.
At least they have made a statement which unambiguously states that they hold not and did not hold a position . From the shareholders point of view their statement lacks clarity and detail but as market operators it would be difficult for them to finger or expose wrong-doing by another marketmaker.
If the RSV Action Group have evidence against Shore Capital then this may have to be re-considered.
It is the FSA's and LSE 's job in the end to reveal the truth what really did happen. Quite rightly though you are upset that the primary contact, your broker, withholds information which you have every right to know. If you place an order in a shop, pay your money and there is no delivery, the shop-keeper is the defaulting party from which you can claim. If the fault is due to the manufacturer or wholesaler the very least he owes you is a truthful and full explanation to explain the delivery failure.
It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that Evolution have not offered a statement revealing their position, if any. Shareholders are entitled to draw their own conclusions as to their involvement if the people in the know will not tell them.
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 16:01 - 978 of 1042
jaknife
youve simply highlighted ANOTHER variation on same theme thats all...it doesnt change the thrust of what i said, which is that every party should be obliged to settle their trades in the open market and that ultimately all claims for losses incurred by each party to a transaction would end up right where they should be, which is with whoever made the first mistake and sold what didnt exist or what they didnt have. However, if every party in the chain was obliged to fulfill their trade then you would immediately rectify everything and it would be that FIRST party who would end up picking up the bill, as it should be. Why we dont have a market or set of rules that can handle this is beyond me. There would then be no talk of settlemetn difficulties or wrong doing - there would simply be someone left facing hefty losses at the start of the chain, as it should be.
And yes i would expect Shore Capital or whoever to take a customer to court if the customer did not fulfil their side of a transaction (eg if a payment was not made for stock that was delivered) then im sure the punter WOULD be pursued, I cant see why you think they wouldnt or why thats wrong or why it ALSO shouldnt work in reverse, which you seem to be arguing against?
As a side issue and of interest is that the reason trading couldnt take place immediately after the first d4e went wrong was NOT because the LSE suspended the shares but because the COMPANY did...so presumably this means the COMPANY (or at least its executive officers) DID know there would be difficulties with settlement?
matto - 7 Jan'04 - 16:02 - 979 of 1042
Agincourt - I concur with harvester. I think Jakie is right on this one.
It is an interesting insight into how complex this situation is and why the LSE should have stepped in and stopped it as soon as they were alerted.
If Shore are to be pursued in the courts will they have to cover their position by pursuing individuals who sold them shares?
PK - If I bought and sold shares in RSV so that I have no apparent position, I'd be a bit pissed if Shore came after me. I'd then have to take an action out against EVO presumably. See its all very messy.
The LSE were alerted to the possibility of settlement problems days before the AGM but took no action as they thought the MMs were playing by the rules.
harvester - 7 Jan'04 - 16:04 - 980 of 1042
Paul Kent:
good contribution to the debate.
Appreciated .
MikeDP - 7 Jan'04 - 16:14 - 981 of 1042
JakNife
I would remind you that Graham Shore of Shore Capital has spoken directly to the action group and has specifically said that Shore Capital has no material position. The action group chose to ignore that statement and continues to malign Shore Capital.
When talking with you there sometimes seems to be a communication problem between the financial world and the rest of us.
I call the quoted response a denial but definitely not an answer.
First if I understand it correctly it means any position they may have is not very big by insertion of the word "material". Material is a blurring word of indeterminate size. So actually my reaction to it was that it sounded a bit shifty.
Second a simple statement like "we haven't deliberately sold any shares short and any we may have sold unknowingly result from buying of defaulting punters or other market makers (Or Whatever is true)" may even have made them heroes not villains.
But the trouble is that would have pointed the finger at someone else, so an answer wasn't given and so the attacks continue. I'm not surprised I'm afraid.
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 16:15 - 982 of 1042
matto
ur right..it WOULD be messy, but thats why all parties should jsut be forced to settle their positions in the open market, where of course the one holding the shortest position would be hammered as holders know what the circumstances are..but then if you choose to play that game then you should reap the consequences. I think its what a retail punter has to do isnt it if they chose to short something?..big risk
and if its possible to identify parties with neutral positions who cant deliver because theyve been let down then a mechanism should exist so that the liability to settle passes straight to the original sinner!..in these hi tech days im sure its easy to spot!..this would prob cancel out ALL retail investors and any MMs who were neutral and would simplify things enormously.
the other advantage of doing this is that ALL shareholders would benefit from the high prices the original sinner would then have to pay to acquire the stock they ned to settle ALL contracts, whereas the current settlement offer only helps some shareholders.
If there is physically not enough stock because as appears the case in thsi case, they have sold more than exists, then they should have to pay what needs paying till they own all stock, then they should ahve to pay everyone else who hasnt received money the highest price they had to pay to get the stock in. It would hurt them so much theyd never do it again, and isnt that the whole point of rules and enforcing them?
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 16:20 - 983 of 1042
Harvester
You may be right, but I can do as I please.
When I started work in 1962 in the City it was axiomatic that:
"MY WORD IS MY BOND"
That is now a sick joke.
We are surrounded by criminals. What went on here was not just a failure of the system or some naughty short selling. It was a criminal act. They can't hide behind LSE regulations and claim just to have ever so slightly breached this rule or that rule. I have read the rules, and they have driven a coach and horses through them. The stock exchange made no effort at all to make the MMs ober the rules. The shares had not been admitted to trade. No application had been made to have them admitted. That is two rules broken.
What happened here was criminal. This is nothing to do with "shorting" this is obtaining a financial advatage by deception. They sold something that DID NOT EXIST. They have stolen peoples money. In my case it was only £900 and I would not have invested it if I could not afford to lose it. Some people have no doubt lost money they could not afford to lose, and as a result their children have gone without. Let us not lose sight of the personal side of this. JakNife and his masters think it is a game. It is not a game.
I might get my £900 back and I might not. I am indifferent to that but I will pursue the criminal who stole from me and I will make complaints to the professional bodies or any qualified person involved in this.
If I find, and I might well, that JakNife has told one lie and thereby damaged my interests, or anyone elses, I will pursue him. Indedd if he has told a lie to better the position of his masters that is also an offence.
There seems to be a notion about that lies are acceptable and just part of the game. They are not. Any lie which causes a gain to the liar or a loss, however small, to anyone else is a criminal offence.
The big joke is that hour after hour is spent here debating the issues with the criminals' representative.
The FSA and the LSE watch and wait for it all to go away. They know that a criminal act has been commited. Why do they persist in talking about compensation, regulating the market, having an orderly market, enquiring into whether any rule has been broken etc. etc. Why? Because they hope it will all go away.
The proper and decent course of action is as follows.
Stop pussyfooting about with rules, compensation etc.
Call in the police.
Change the LSE Rules to ensure this does not happen again.
Have a trial.
Lock the criminals up.
Report all "professionals" to their associations etc.
Claim for Compensation.
And JakNIfe - let's have no bollocks about innocent until proven guilty. If you were mugged, lost £900, and you knew who the mugger was and you went to the "authorities" and said "It was him" you would know who was guilty. You would be aggrieved if the police told you they could do nothing because he was innocent until proven guilty so you should be quiet. And, that is your position, you sill numbskull.
matto - 7 Jan'04 - 16:28 - 984 of 1042
Agincourt - agreed - but it is worth trying to identify the real villains.
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 16:32 - 985 of 1042
Nonsense - call the police in - it is their job to identify the villains.
matto - 7 Jan'04 - 16:33 - 986 of 1042
True - but you should be careful pointing the finger.
Maybe JakNife will learn that if he keeps posting crap people will miss the occasional nugget but I doubt it.
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 16:34 - 987 of 1042
If you were a manager of a Bank and you called the police and said "Help, we have had a bank robbery" they would be there at once and would then try to find the villains. They would not say, " Tell us who the villains are and we will pop round someday"
LOL
That only happens if it is your house that is burgled.
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 16:35 - 988 of 1042
surely if ANY memeber of the public is sure a criminal act has occurred, they can call in the police cant they?..in this case tho, before anyone gets carried away, i think they should liaise with anomalous who has done a fab job coordinating the efforts of all interested parties in this matter...there may be some information or views that he can pass on which may be relevant to this and other matters
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 16:39 - 989 of 1042
hey, jsut had a mad thought..you know you can sell on your rights to "rights issues..?..well could we start trading in the "rights" to the settlement and compensation in this case???..hell, what am i saying, im sure that somone somewhere is already trading rights they dont have !!!...
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 16:42 - 990 of 1042
If the police were involved, doing the interrogating, these people would be talking. They would not be able to give up their "friends" fast enough. As it is, they keep quiet because they know that the LSE and the FSA are primarily interested in "maintaining an orderly market". If they, the LSE and FSA, have to brush everything else under the carpet to do that, then they will.
and, FSA and LSE, if you don't agree with that, if that is not true, show us, prove it. You can't and you won't because you are not interested in the exxential fact here.
Have you forgotten what that is?
Here it is:
The MMs sold something they did not have, which did not exist, and so induced people to part with their money. They then failed to come up with the shares.
You the LSE and FSA are not concerned with the THEFT you are only concerned with getting back to an orderly market.
You, the LSE and FSA should be actively working to bringing the criminals to trial.
Now here is a thought. You must know that a crime has been committed. Why have you not brought it to the attention of the police? Do you intend to? Are you assisting in the gettaway? Are you the gangsters MOLL.
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 16:44 - 991 of 1042
PaulKent
Perhaps you should liaise with anomalous. lol
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 16:47 - 992 of 1042
lol indeed!
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 16:58 - 993 of 1042
JakNife
You gone home now? That's interesting isn't it? They let him off early. Perhaps he's going for an interview. After all, he will be needing a new job soon.
PaulKent - 7 Jan'04 - 17:09 - 994 of 1042
awww..agincourt..i think ur being too harsh !!!... Frankly i think its quite useful having him around, and im not convinced he IS working for Evo, but he (or she!?) never did deny it when i accused him (or her) of being married to an MM!!!!!
Agincourt - 7 Jan'04 - 17:32 - 995 of 1042
PaulKent
I am not being too harsh at all. I have not even started yet. It may be useful to have him around. I understand that and do liaise.
I am quite happy to support whatever sterling efforts are being made by anomalous and others and do whatever is asked of me. I would indeed put in any amount of time if required.
However, I do have my own point of view and I will put it when ever I want.
I will repeat.
These people are criminals and whatever else happens I will go after them. In my view it is a shame that there are some people who must have their compensation first as it is only slowing up the hunt for the criminals. I just wish that it were possible for everyone to write off the money then we could stop all this pussyfooting about and get after the thieves. But, I do understand that there are different priorities and that we must go down that route.
It is a shame that the route we are going down will be giving the FSA, the LSE and the MMs the idea that if they come up with compensation that all this will go away. It distracts from the real issues which are the criminality and the pathetic governance of the stock exchange. Why are they pathetic? because their priorities are to "maintain and orderly market" and look after the other member of the "club" rather than protect investors.
Anomalous - 7 Jan'04 - 17:41 - 996 of 1042
>Matto
You raised a good point. There is a considerable problem for private investors where the nominee broker has signed a confidentiality agreement that prevents the broker from revealing the other Principal's name. We've been advised that in this situation, the broker in refusing to reveal the name of the other Principal (party) and acting in the capacity of their agent, is accepting liability for any failure to deliver.
So far the following brokers have been exceptionally helpful to their clients:
Halifax Share Dealing Limited
T D Waterhouse
Barclays Stockbrokers
The Action Group would recommend that if you are interested in protecting your rights as a investor that you use the above brokers alone.
A number of other prominent brokers have caused their customers problems
Nearly all the brokers we've spoken to have claimed that they are 'Execution only' and therefore only acting in the capacity of agents. If the Market Maker forces them to sign a confidentiality contract, there is nothing they can do about it.
But of course there is. The Broker could have refused to sign such an agreement. The above brokers do not have this agreement. If a broker wants to shoot themselves in the foot and deny the rights of their customers, then these customers will vote with their feet and move to their competitors.
On the matter of voting rights, the majority of the nominee brokers are endowing their customers with voting rights,
From the moment of purchase
by use of the Letter of Representation. Where this becomes legal, under Company law is that the nominee broker is a name listed on the Share Register. The nominee broker issues the Letter of Representation as a PROXY.
As you will know quite well under Section 372 Companies Act 1985, a member of a company (nominee broker) can appoint another person to act on their behalf at a meeting. This person need not be a member (so it does not matter that a settlement has been effected or not). The Proxy is not only the person, but the instrument by which the appointment is made.
If the broker, who has a number of votes pooled in their share account, chooses to issue a proxy to their client (the investor) at the moment they purchase their shares, then they can do so. The Letter of Representation IS a proxy.
If there are insufficient shares in the account of the nominee broker, then I concede that the bearer (proxy voter), can only vote to the maximum amount held in the account. If there are other proxies at the meeting and they were recognised first, then they have priority over other Letters of Representation (proxies) arriving later. The Registrar in this case has been most helpful |
