The Lemon Fool

We have received notification via Selftrade of Raven Property Group's proposal to to re-designate (their words) all of RAVC into .6108 New Ordinary Shares and .5849 New Preference shares for each 1 exisiting convertible share

Although it has to be put to Ordinary and Convertible shareholders to vote on the proposal they say they have received irrevocable committment from 71.35 of Ord holders and 71.9% of Conv holders to vote in agreement of this proposal

It looks a pretty awful deal for us ravc holders. It is especially annoying as I have recently switched from ravp to ravc due to them being senior and having a defined payment date and amount.

Yes - that's why I concentrated on these a few months ago

I guess the mirror view from Raven's perspective drove them to snooker this for usv- perhaps we should have seen this one coming !

Wozzitworthit wrote:We have received notification via Selftrade of Raven Property Group's proposal to to re-designate (their words) all of RAVC into .6108 New Ordinary Shares and .5849 New Preference shares for each 1 exisiting convertible share

Although it has to be put to Ordinary and Convertible shareholders to vote on the proposal they say they have received irrevocable committment from 71.35 of Ord holders and 71.9% of Conv holders to vote in agreement of this proposal

Will the 0.5849 Pref Shares be RAVP or a new class of Prefs?

They will be RAVP, they state the purpose to to simplify the share structure.

I'm no longer a holder of C or P, but surely holders of RAVC have a decisive vote?

V8

FWIW, I will be voting against the proposal. Ravc are senior to both RAV and RAVP on winding up and they have a repayment date, so lower risk. Although there is a small gain to be had from the current price of RAVC, this is inadequate compensation for what I see as quite a significant increase in risk.

I was a RAVP holder when RAVC, originally RUSC, was issued and it felt like a stitch up at the time and this feels like another one.

88V8 wrote:I'm no longer a holder of C or P, but surely holders of RAVC have a decisive vote?

V8

Both require a 75% approval.

They say they almost have enough.

I'm not happy either - especially as I only very recently swapped my RAVP for RAVC.

Laughton wrote:They say they almost have enough.

I'm not happy either - especially as I only very recently swapped my RAVP for RAVC.

So did I, seemed like a no brainer at the time, which makes me a little suspicious about how many people might have known this was coming.

It should go without saying that the redesignation is bad for RAVC and holders should vote against it at the imminent class vote. Although the Company has got 70+% of the required 75% via arrangements with Quilter and Invesco to pass the class vote, almost all the other institutional shareholders (which are not Quilter and Invesco) will be voting against the proposal and have written to the Company to indicate this. It is unlikely but not impossible that the dissenters can get over the 25% hurdle, but every vote will count.

eventide wrote:...the Company has got 70+% of the required 75%

Hmmm
Do you mean 70% of 75%, or 70% part of 75%?

V8

88V8 wrote:

eventide wrote:...the Company has got 70+% of the required 75%

Hmmm
Do you mean 70% of 75%, or 70% part of 75%?

V8

The class vote of convertible preference shares needs 75% of those voting to vote for the redesignation. The company has gained commitments from owners of approximately 72% of RAVC outstanding to vote for the proposals. So of the remainder of the class outstanding (28% of the issue), and assuming everyone votes, a fraction of at least 25/28 must vote against for the vote to fail.