BCS - BrisConnections Unit Trusts

[sails]

So Nick still holds the securities and is liable for the installment payments (assuming the status quo remains).

I guess he's going to exercise his put option on the securities so he doesn't have to pay the $154m.

Wasn't there an expiry date to his put option? Anyone remember that date?

It's probably anyone's guess what Bolton might do next. If he still holds the units, he would presumably continue to have the rights of a major share holder with a bit of extra cash now. And he's not the only one with major holdings in this stock now.

Probably more twists and turns to come...

 

[Mc Gusto]

No. He will not own the shares after today. READ the bloody attachment to this post. He has done a smart piece of greenmail with LEI.

Don't read that at all. I can see the proxy was bought but bolton remains the holder of units...or ASI at least.

Am i missing something??

 

[Largesse]

Where do you read that?

The deed clearly states that "ASI remains the registered and beneficial holder of all the units". Nick sold the proxies, not the units. There is no debate about that.

Nick still needs to off load his liability somehow.

err....... remember the contentious put option he struck......

consider it exercised


blalalalalalalasdasdwords

 

[investorpaul]

Where do you read that?

The deed clearly states that "ASI remains the registered and beneficial holder of all the units". Nick sold the proxies, not the units. There is no debate about that.

Nick still needs to off load his liability somehow.

See Item 4 point c under the deed, i think that covers it. He basically says Bolton will remain a unit holder up until the end of the meeting after that he wont own any briscon.

Obviously its in there so that Leighton doesnt have to buy the units if for some reason Bolton voted for the resolution

 

[Judd]

Don't read that at all. I can see the proxy was bought but bolton remains the holder of units...or ASI at least.

Am i missing something??

Clause 4(c) of the Deed of Agreement refers. He remains the holder until the close of the meeting PROVIDED all resolutions fail (Clause 2). And he or ASI have delivered all proxies to LEI or its nominees.

Investorpaul beat me to it!

 

[skc]

Clause 4(c) of the Deed of Agreement refers. He remains the holder until the close of the meeting PROVIDED all resolutions fail (Clause 2). And he or ASI have delivered all proxies to LEI or its nominees.

Investorpaul beat me to it!

See Item 4 point c under the deed, i think that covers it. He basically says Bolton will remain a unit holder up until the end of the meeting after that he wont own any briscon.

Obviously its in there so that Leighton doesnt have to buy the units if for some reason Bolton voted for the resolution

WHAT!

That clause simply says ASI agrees to remain the holder until end of today. Where does it say that it is no longer the holder after today???

You guys should never sign any contracts.

 

[Mc Gusto]

WHAT!

That clause simply says ASI agrees to remain the holder until end of today. Where does it say that it is no longer the holder after today???

You guys should never sign any contracts.

quote of the day - it just avoids him selling them (sas if there was a buyer). he still has the units trust me

the put option isa another story entirely though

 

[drsmith]

ASI and Bolton Obligations Item 4 point c:

Remain the registered and beneficial holder of all ASI units, and not grant any right or interest in or in respect of the ASI Units to any other person (except TJ or it's nominee under clause 4(a)), up until the time at which the 14 April Meeting is closed.

Upon first reading that I sould say that Bolton has sold the units as of the end of the meeting but it is not absolutely explicit and hence open to interpretation.

If Leighton and Bolton interpret the statement differently then that will be interesting.

 

[investorpaul]

WHAT!

That clause simply says ASI agrees to remain the holder until end of today. Where does it say that it is no longer the holder after today???

You guys should never sign any contracts.

I understand what you mean, as i said in my first post I asked how other people interpreted it. I am open to being wrong.

It just strikes me as odd how it all has played out. Who cares if they get 4.5m but still have tens of millions in liability

 

[Mc Gusto]

I understand what you mean, as i said in my first post I asked how other people interpreted it. I am open to being wrong.

It just strikes me as odd how it all has played out. Who cares if they get 4.5m but still have tens of millions in liability

trust me he has not sold the units - he sold the votes.

this is clear from the asx statement. there is no way leightons would pay 4.5m for 177m of debt....

 

[mikeyfinn111]

trust me he has not sold the units - he sold the votes.

this is clear from the asx statement. there is no way leightons would pay 4.5m for 177m of debt....

Wrong...read this....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNBZ2YifSHoY


..

 

[Mc Gusto]

Wrong...read this....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNBZ2YifSHoY


..

once again it is the reporting of the australian. the units still belong to ASI trust me

 

[Junior]

This article specifically explains that he has sold the Voting rights attached to his units:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25332983-26103,00.html

 

[skc]

Wrong...read this....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aNBZ2YifSHoY


..

Totally with Mc Gusto. LEI did not buy the units from Nick.

LEI would have incurred a liability of $154m, and would have taken a $50-75m hit to their bottom line straight away. The BCS units will not be worth anywhere the $2 LEI would have paid for them.

Mikey, you have found a wrong story from Bloomberg. Email the reporter and claim a reward

 

[bluey]

But any idea why on earth Bolton would want to retain his stake in BCS given the liable debt?

If I read correctly - Bolton has waived most if not all of his rights in regards to challenging the company/management by accepting $4.5m.

Am I missing something - if he hasn't sold his stake to TJH - what is Bolton up to??

 

[mikeyfinn111]

once again it is the reporting of the australian. the units still belong to ASI trust me

If your right then his only option is his put option with Williams. My hat goes off to him, but now there is even more of a grim outlook for the retailers who still hold as their white knight has fled the army. Kind of feel guilty for transferring to Nick but if it wasnt me then it would have been someone else. Hope Maq can still create a deal for the retailers but now that there is any danger of the project failing....why would they??

 

[adman0001]

The "White Knight" for retail investors has turned in to the grim reaper. This bloke will not be popular but he has saved himself to the detriment of all other retail holders.

There will be a huge backlash from the retail investors. If I were him, I'd be leaving the country fast.

I've heard he was in Bankok over the weekend, protesting against the G20 summit...................you see, he can also turn Rudd's plane around!

 

[Absolutely]

Totally with Mc Gusto. LEI did not buy the units from Nick.

LEI would have incurred a liability of $154m, and would have taken a $50-75m hit to their bottom line straight away. The BCS units will not be worth anywhere the $2 LEI would have paid for them.

Mikey, you have found a wrong story from Bloomberg. Email the reporter and claim a reward

You would think Bolton wouldn't do a deal like this to leave himself still exposed to the $154M. The $4.5M doesn't help him with that. So there is something else at play here. Possibly the put option but I doubt it. We will see. One way or another I reckon Bolton wont be holding much longer.

 

[ice]

My interpretation is that LEI bought the units but would not have been registered in time to vote at the meeting, hence the proxy deal.
Ask yourself why would Bolton sell his proxy and be stuck with the financial liability when the proxy was used against him.
Occam's razor.

ice

 

[Judd]

Where do you read that?

The deed clearly states that "ASI remains the registered and beneficial holder of all the units". Nick sold the proxies, not the units. There is no debate about that.

Nick still needs to off load his liability somehow.

Don't read that at all. I can see the proxy was bought but bolton remains the holder of units...or ASI at least.

Am i missing something??

Arrrhhh. You're right. Apologies. And thank the Good Lord that I don't enter into contracts with myself - or anyone else.