Comments on: Activism http://www.savedragon.com Rescue Dragon from the clutches of ENOC Sun, 18 Jul 2010 03:50:04 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: MartynTJones http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-183 MartynTJones Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:14:03 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-183 Well done to all!!! Time for celebration. And a big, big thank you to Robert McKay for starting this whole process. Well done to all!!!

Time for celebration.

And a big, big thank you to Robert McKay for starting this whole process.

]]> By: Doggy http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-114 Doggy Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:06:54 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-114 Correction to above: "the approval by a MAJORITY in number "!!!!!!! Correction to above: “the approval by a MAJORITY in number “!!!!!!!

]]> By: MartynTJones http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-113 MartynTJones Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:03:26 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-113 Thanks Doggy for your prompt reply and yes I believe that you are right and we look forward to the article on this point. I did know that that clause was in place in the document, but read it and read it many times, but still couldn't convince myself that it was covering both voting categories. For those interested, the clause is on page 12 and a few others: "the approval by a minority in number of Scheme Shareholders representing three-fourths (75 per cent) or more in value of the Scheme Shares held by such holders present and voting either in person or by proxy, at the Court Meeting (or at any adjournment of such meeting)" Quite clear isn't it! But it's important that minority shareholders understand that, irrespective of how many shares they hold, they are allowed one vote towards achieving the "majority in number" voting part of the scheme. (And I know that Rob has pointed this out on this site, but I have a short memory and there's lots going on) I know this seems obvious to the gifted in these matters, but I'm just speaking out for some of the less talented in these matters ... i.e. me! Martyn Thanks Doggy for your prompt reply and yes I believe that you are right and we look forward to the article on this point.

I did know that that clause was in place in the document, but read it and read it many times, but still couldn’t convince myself that it was covering both voting categories. For those interested, the clause is on page 12 and a few others:

“the approval by a minority in number of Scheme Shareholders representing three-fourths (75 per cent) or more in value of the Scheme Shares held by such holders present and voting either in person or by proxy, at the Court Meeting (or at any adjournment of such meeting)”

Quite clear isn’t it!

But it’s important that minority shareholders understand that, irrespective of how many shares they hold, they are allowed one vote towards achieving the “majority in number” voting part of the scheme. (And I know that Rob has pointed this out on this site, but I have a short memory and there’s lots going on)

I know this seems obvious to the gifted in these matters, but I’m just speaking out for some of the less talented in these matters … i.e. me!

Martyn

]]> By: Doggy http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-111 Doggy Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:40:24 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-111 Martyn - page 12. Also it is a majority of those voting, not a majority of the scheme shareholders (the 48.5% of total shareholders). An article on this very point is pending approval. Martyn – page 12. Also it is a majority of those voting, not a majority of the scheme shareholders (the 48.5% of total shareholders).
An article on this very point is pending approval.

]]> By: Doggy http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-110 Doggy Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:28:32 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-110 Martyn - the scheme states "a majority in number" - i.e. over 50%. Martyn – the scheme states “a majority in number” – i.e. over 50%.

]]> By: MartynTJones http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-109 MartynTJones Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:44:27 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-109 I'm reluctant to register with the "iii" discussion forum, but hope that someone from there will pick up this point. It concerns the requirement that a Scheme to be passed must also have more that 50% of the voters voting in favour. I note that this is stated in the literature pointed to, but please could you tell me where this is stated in the Dragon Oil Scheme Of Arrangement. I think that you have raised an immensely valid point and this should be made more clear everywhere as all minority holders must be made aware of this. I assume that Dragon Oil have omitted this "requirement" from their issued Scheme Of Arrangement for obvious reasons. I’m reluctant to register with the “iii” discussion forum, but hope that someone from there will pick up this point. It concerns the requirement that a Scheme to be passed must also have more that 50% of the voters voting in favour. I note that this is stated in the literature pointed to, but please could you tell me where this is stated in the Dragon Oil Scheme Of Arrangement. I think that you have raised an immensely valid point and this should be made more clear everywhere as all minority holders must be made aware of this. I assume that Dragon Oil have omitted this “requirement” from their issued Scheme Of Arrangement for obvious reasons.

]]> By: MartynTJones http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-103 MartynTJones Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:15:32 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-103 It just sprung to mind ... perhaps that reason that the institutions that are holding our nominee accounts want this deal to go ahead is because Dragon Oil has lots and lots of shareholders with small shareholdings. They make their money from "transactions", so this is a great opportunity for them to get back some wonderful commission on every sale (purchase) ... if I understand correctly. It just sprung to mind … perhaps that reason that the institutions that are holding our nominee accounts want this deal to go ahead is because Dragon Oil has lots and lots of shareholders with small shareholdings. They make their money from “transactions”, so this is a great opportunity for them to get back some wonderful commission on every sale (purchase) … if I understand correctly.

]]> By: MartynTJones http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-102 MartynTJones Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:05:34 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-102 Made a few phonecalls tonight, I'm limited by personal circumstances. Spoke with some very charming people, most were aware of the situation and said that they would follow up by taking a look at this site. Some have already voted "No". I have left messages on answer phones, so I hope these will take a look also. In my opinion, as the deadline(s) near, as others also point out on the "iii discussion forum" this whole affair needs to broadcast on the major TV news and papers. This is too rushed a process, where minority shareholders just haven't been given a chance to make valid decisions. P.S. Still haven't received any "Corporate Actions" forms form Barclays ... I will remain calm and patient though. Made a few phonecalls tonight, I’m limited by personal circumstances. Spoke with some very charming people, most were aware of the situation and said that they would follow up by taking a look at this site. Some have already voted “No”. I have left messages on answer phones, so I hope these will take a look also.

In my opinion, as the deadline(s) near, as others also point out on the “iii discussion forum” this whole affair needs to broadcast on the major TV news and papers.

This is too rushed a process, where minority shareholders just haven’t been given a chance to make valid decisions.

P.S. Still haven’t received any “Corporate Actions” forms form Barclays … I will remain calm and patient though.

]]> By: MartynTJones http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-100 MartynTJones Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:49:42 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-100 Isn't time for the Times online/paper to publish a short article about the Save Dragon Oil campaign - highlighting this site? Shall we write to: letters.editor@ft.com P.S. Will start to phone certificated share holders tonight. Isn’t time for the Times online/paper to publish a short article about the Save Dragon Oil campaign – highlighting this site?

Shall we write to:

letters.editor@ft.com

P.S. Will start to phone certificated share holders tonight.

]]> By: Hopeful holder http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70&cpage=1#comment-99 Hopeful holder Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:03:42 +0000 http://www.savedragon.com/?page_id=70#comment-99 I believe the closing date for registering accounts is the 27th Nov. therefore posting documents out may not be the best way. (miss the deadline) As a comment - the documents I have read do not seem to help people how to register for voting rights - although I may have missed something. Excellent work by many people so well done to all! HH I believe the closing date for registering accounts is the 27th Nov. therefore posting documents out may not be the best way. (miss the deadline)

As a comment – the documents I have read do not seem to help people how to register for voting rights – although I may have missed something.

Excellent work by many people so well done to all!

HH

]]>