Dealing with the Polymetal delisting and moving holding to Kazakhstan

[JimmyTheBruce]

2 hours ago, The Bear of Doom said:

I will be annoyed if the re-dom doesn't happen and I could have kept my shares in the II ISA. Also it's annoying that HL will allow the shares to be kept in an account, but other platforms such as II don't.

In other news, on Saturday I received in the post a voting pack for the Poly AGM!

My Mrs will be even more annoyed if the re-dom doesn't happen.  II sold the Poly holdings in her SIPP last week.

[sancho panza]

1 hour ago, JimmyTheBruce said:

My Mrs will be even more annoyed if the re-dom doesn't happen.  II sold the Poly holdings in her SIPP last week.

I'd make a regulated complaint on that one jimmy.

Dont take II's word for it that they had the right,look at what the other big brokers are doing.ALl offering the right to hold certs........Id be itnerested to know the legal basis of forced sales.Tehy'll say T+Cs and I'd say let's get the FCA to double check that.

T+C's can't overwrite rights granted under statute.

Use the template above.If you need any help PM me.

Edit to add-if anyone wants help with their regulated complaint then get in touch and I'll do my best.

Edited July 3, 2023 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

3 hours ago, The Bear of Doom said:

I will be annoyed if the re-dom doesn't happen and I could have kept my shares in the II ISA. Also it's annoying that HL will allow the shares to be kept in an account, but other platforms such as II don't.

In other news, on Saturday I received in the post a voting pack for the Poly AGM!

you can jsut sell and rebuy in the ISA,yeah there'd be some fees but for the potential returns,small beer

 

[Foor]

De-listing seems to be the problem. The board and the FCA are possibly looking at a fit hence can kicking. Also it has to be voted through at the AGM.

By encouraging as much retail i into paper will narrow the trading pool. Look at today the sells are falling the buy's outstripping hence a base for the price.

This thing could pop one bit of good news.

Now I wonder what that could be. Moi.

[Majorpain]

2 hours ago, JimmyTheBruce said:

My Mrs will be even more annoyed if the re-dom doesn't happen.  II sold the Poly holdings in her SIPP last week.

Yeah, mine went too.  Playing devils advocate I'm wondering if they sold them on open market or to another part of the group for "safe keeping", wouldn't surprise me as there are a lot of sharks floating around at the minute.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Majorpain

[wherebee]

12 hours ago, Majorpain said:

Yeah, mine went too.  Playing devils advocate I'm wondering if they sold them on open market or to another part of the group for "safe keeping", wouldn't surprise me as there are a lot of sharks floating around at the minute.

Put a complaint in.

There are no western sanctions against POLY, as far as I can see.  No legal reason why you cannot hold the stock.  You should go all feral to get at the least compensation, and at the most a make good (they have to buy you the shares back).

This is a multi bagger over 20 years, unless we are all glowing rubble.

[Foor]

1 minute ago, wherebee said:

Put a complaint in.

There are no western sanctions against POLY, as far as I can see.  No legal reason why you cannot hold the stock.  You should go all feral to get at the least compensation, and at the most a make good (they have to buy you the shares back).

This is a multi bagger over 20 years, unless we are all glowing rubble.

Did you get you're certs or did you stop them selling on you?

[wherebee]

Just now, Foor said:

Did you get you're certs or did you stop them selling on you?

They pushed back the deadline to late July (maybe in response to complaints?).  They say they 'reserve the right' to sell.  I told them again if they do, I'll sue their arses off and report them to the regulator.

I want to just keep the position there.  Don't want paper certs unless I really have to, don't want to sign up to some eastern exchange which might get sanctioned next week.

[Foor]

3 minutes ago, wherebee said:

They pushed back the deadline to late July (maybe in response to complaints?).  They say they 'reserve the right' to sell.  I told them again if they do, I'll sue their arses off and report them to the regulator.

I want to just keep the position there.  Don't want paper certs unless I really have to, don't want to sign up to some eastern exchange which might get sanctioned next week.

The deadline been pushed back by the board not IB. Get you're certs. You can then re register with HL when this pantomime ends. It will end one million worth of buy's just gone through. What a surprise. 

[wherebee]

24 minutes ago, Foor said:

The deadline been pushed back by the board not IB. Get you're certs. You can then re register with HL when this pantomime ends. It will end one million worth of buy's just gone through. What a surprise. 

I'm not in the UK.  In Australia.  

But cheers - I'll go the certs route.  Where to start?  Contacting POLY?

 

[Foor]

9 minutes ago, wherebee said:

I'm not in the UK.  In Australia.  

But cheers - I'll go the certs route.  Where to start?  Contacting POLY?

 

No IB request certs asap. Let us know how you get on. Good luck.

[Majorpain]

2 hours ago, wherebee said:

Put a complaint in.

There are no western sanctions against POLY, as far as I can see.  No legal reason why you cannot hold the stock.  You should go all feral to get at the least compensation, and at the most a make good (they have to buy you the shares back).

This is a multi bagger over 20 years, unless we are all glowing rubble.

Wasn't going to because I'm busy, but you persuaded me to put a message in with a few difficult questions for them.  However, I'm sure their lawyers will have been all over this like a tramp on chips.

[wherebee]

15 minutes ago, Majorpain said:

Wasn't going to because I'm busy, but you persuaded me to put a message in with a few difficult questions for them.  However, I'm sure their lawyers will have been all over this like a tramp on chips.

I bet they haven't.  I reckon most are thinking it's sanctioned by the west and too risky - which is not the case at all.

Anyway, I found this:

https://investingintheweb.com/blog/polymetal-delisting-lse/

[wherebee]

Put a query into IB to get clarity.  I did find this reddit thread:

and this overall POLY thread collection.  Lots of retail investors being fucked over.

https://www.reddit.com/r/POYYF/

[wherebee]

And... some people are mentioning a LSE discussion board covering POLY.  Anyone found it?

[Majorpain]

1 hour ago, wherebee said:

I bet they haven't.  I reckon most are thinking it's sanctioned by the west and too risky - which is not the case at all.

T and C pretty much enable them to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they can change the rules at any time, although to be honest I'm not sure anyone has ever challenged legality of that.

Nominee accounts certainly make things easier than certificates, but this demonstrates nicely the downside in having someone else being able to meddle with your stuff when things get tricky.

[sancho panza]

4 hours ago, Majorpain said:

Wasn't going to because I'm busy, but you persuaded me to put a message in with a few difficult questions for them.  However, I'm sure their lawyers will have been all over this like a tramp on chips.

I wouldn't make that assumption.We aren't privy to the conversations behind closed doors but lawyers get things worng all time.

I can't go into details but I've some experience in dealing with situations where unfair contract term gets trumped by statutory rights ie those granted by law.They can put whatever they like in a contract or the T+Cs but you can't sign away statutory rights in a contract as I Understand it-I'm not a lawyer but I've dealt with some bull sh1tters in my time.

Interesting thing here.Genuinely looks to me as if II or anyone forcing sales may be treading on thin ice.There's a reason HL/AJB etc have all 'encouraged sales' and not forced them.

Brokers have the right to buy and sell in discretionary accounts but if you had executiononly and no margin,then I think there might be an issue.Not sure the following applies exactly but the

https://helix-law.co.uk/faq/can-i-be-forced-to-sell-my-shares-in-a-company/

Can I Be Forced to Sell My Shares in a Company?

A Shareholder cannot generally be forced to sell shares in a company unless you have either agreed to a process resulting in that outcome, or the court orders that outcome.

Including a form of process whereby shares are sold/purchased and are ultimately transferred is usual and common to find within most Shareholders agreements. If you have entered into a Shareholders agreement you may therefore find that you agreed to sell your shares if X, Y or Z events take place, without appreciating you have done so. The content of Shareholders agreements is therefore fundamental to answering this question, if there is such an agreement in place.

If there is no Shareholders agreement in place, the court also has very wide discretion in terms of the outcome in any litigation and dispute. Outcomes in litigation, including in unfair prejudice petitions, can include a share purchase order, where the court orders the sale/transfer of shares from one party to another for £X price. These remedies are included in section 996 (2) (e) companies act 2006 which confirms the court can;

‘…provide for the purchase of the shares of any members of the company by other members or by the company itself and, in the case of a purchase by the company itself, the reduction of the company’s capital accordingly’.

Tactical use of unfair prejudice proceedings to force the sale/purchase, transfer and exit of other Shareholders in reliance on sections 994-996 companies act 2006 can therefore be a useful approach.

 

 

The following applies to the Board but I'd need to read up to see if it applies to Brokers.

https://www.gannons.co.uk/shareholder-rights/unfair-prejudice-claims/

How to prove unfair prejudice

A claimant must prove that the alleged unfair activity relates to the running of the business and that it impacts upon the shareholders generally or some smaller section of them. The claimant themselves must always be one of the shareholders affected.

There is no definitive  list of the types of action or inaction which will amount to unfair prejudice, and so the question of what is and is not prejudicial will always be a question of fact.

For an unfair prejudice claim to succeed, the claimant must demonstrate that the unfair activity has resulted in prejudice to their position as a shareholder. Proving actual prejudice is essential – it is not sufficient that the directors of a company have hurt the claimant’s feelings or have treated them unfairly in relation to something unconnected to the shares.

While it strengthens the claim if one shareholder is at a disadvantage compared to other shareholders, this is not necessary to bring an unfair prejudice petition. It is enough that the unfair activity negatively affects the shareholders generally.

For example, If directors repeatedly breach their duties or pay themselves bonuses while refusing  to pay dividends this arguably affects all shareholders equally, but could still allow a shareholder to bring an unfair prejudice petition

 

[sancho panza]

2 hours ago, Majorpain said:

T and C pretty much enable them to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they can change the rules at any time, although to be honest I'm not sure anyone has ever challenged legality of that.

Nominee accounts certainly make things easier than certificates, but this demonstrates nicely the downside in having someone else being able to meddle with your stuff when things get tricky.

A landlord can include a contract term enabling him to visit his/her rental property every day and lick the counter top clean for an hour.

However,it's unenforceable because the Landlord and Tenant Act(for instance) provides a statutory right for the tenant to have 'quiet enjoyment' which the licking of the table top would run counter to.You can't sign away statutory rights in a contract as I understand it.-I'm not a lawyer.

Ergo,the statutory right will trump the unfair contract term.

Edited July 4, 2023 by sancho panza

[Majorpain]

39 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

I wouldn't make that assumption.We aren't privy to the conversations behind closed doors but lawyers get things worng all time.

I can't go into details but I've some experience in dealing with situations where unfair contract term gets trumped by statutory rights ie those granted by law.They can put whatever they like in a contract or the T+Cs but you can't sign away statutory rights in a contract as I Understand it-I'm not a lawyer but I've dealt with some bull sh1tters in my time.

Interesting thing here.Genuinely looks to me as if II or anyone forcing sales may be treading on thin ice.There's a reason HL/AJB etc have all 'encouraged sales' and not forced them.

Brokers have the right to buy and sell in discretionary accounts but if you had executiononly and no margin,then I think there might be an issue.

I agree totally, i am surprised they sold them as it is a bit de jure/de facto as to who is the actual legal owner of the shares in a nominee account.

Either your the legal owner or you are not, just like you cant be half pregnant.

[Cosmic]

Well mine have gone from II after AJB rejected the transfer post the deadline for certs. Thing is I can see NO communication from the AJB side as to the cancelation of the transfer. Really got me down at the moment... but not sure I've got the energy to complain about both AJB and II  What's complaining at some poor call centre bod going to get me...

Edited July 4, 2023 by Cosmic

[Castlevania]

20 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Well mine have gone from II after AJB rejected the transfer post the deadline for certs. Thing is I can see NO communication from the AJB side as to the cancelation of the transfer. Really got me down at the moment... but not sure I've got the energy to complain about both AJB and II  What's complaining at some poor call centre bod going to get me...

They’re regulated entities so have to take complaints seriously. 
 

Nicked from KPMG’s complaints page (for anyone who used them and were unhappy with KPMG but applies to all companies regulated by the FCA) and covers the below:

What is a complaint?

The FCA defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction (oral or written) about the provision of, or failure to provide, a financial service. It alleges how you have suffered (or may suffer): 

• financial loss; 
• material distress; or 
• material inconvenience

Edited July 4, 2023 by Castlevania

[JimmyTheBruce]

Was this anyone here:

https://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/m9guh-broker-allowed-sell-shares-without-consent.html

Last bit is interesting - "That said ii can close your position without your consent for example to comply with sanctions regimes or where they can no longer have open positions with a company for legal or regulatory reasons."

None of which apply.

Clearly a bit of a grey area which would only get resolved in court, by someone with the resources to take it that far.

I've raised complaints with II and AJ and will take them all the way through to the ombudsman, but previous experience suggests that a regulator that is funded by those it regulates tends to make 'inexplicable' rulings.

[Cold Cold Ground]

I have received a request from ff to confirm the transfer of my shares so it seems to be going through. 

[wherebee]

13 hours ago, JimmyTheBruce said:

Was this anyone here:

https://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/m9guh-broker-allowed-sell-shares-without-consent.html

Last bit is interesting - "That said ii can close your position without your consent for example to comply with sanctions regimes or where they can no longer have open positions with a company for legal or regulatory reasons."

None of which apply.

Clearly a bit of a grey area which would only get resolved in court, by someone with the resources to take it that far.

I've raised complaints with II and AJ and will take them all the way through to the ombudsman, but previous experience suggests that a regulator that is funded by those it regulates tends to make 'inexplicable' rulings.

indeed.  If POLY was sanctioned or otherwise under some local law, fair enough.  

But brokers selling your positions without authorisation, where no margin call situation exists - that blows up the whole basis of using a broker for asset holding...

[TNS]

Got my Tabys code and all setup ready for the de-list, pretty easy actually just follow their guide.

Edited July 6, 2023 by TNS