Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : London Pacific Group - LPGL doubles... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott Bergquist who wrote (481)	4/27/1999 6:09:00 AM
From: rupert1	Respond to of 737

One of the benefits this company derived from registration in Jersey was that a major law suit alleging fraud against its owner, Treugger, was dismissed in the US on the grounds that a contract under dispute was not subject to US law because of the Jersey registration. I do not comment on the merits of the allegation. In substance it accused him of not disclosing a fee he or the company was paid for introducing the first party to a second party - a common enough complaint from a disgruntled investor. Treugger is in a very powerful position to do what he likes with the company. He owns 25%, has options on about 18% of the 21% in the employee scheme and virtually controls that scheme. I would feel sure that if he has not already got connections with some of the other shareholders, he could arrange it, to, give himself complete control. The other directors including the rent-an-English Lord, own 0.22% of the shares between them. Theoretically, Treugger could engineer a buy-out of the company by himself or a third party. The rest of the shareholders would have to accept whatever price he agreed for his shares. Yes, there would be litigation, but so what? There have been obvious attempts by the company (Treugger) to buy back 15% of the shares. Notwithstanding the above, one would have to believe that Treugger would stand to make more money now (whatever his original plans) by creating a market in the shares of LPGL. But he is a lone wolf and who knows what direction he might take with the whole or parts of LPGL. Those who point out that this company was formally Govett should understand that it is common practice in Britain for an entrepreneur who wishes to use the stock market, to take control of a shell company with a listing, or a moribund company, and to convert it into a vehicle for something distinctively different from its original activities. In this case, it has remained in the insurance industry but the venture capital arm is the tail that will soon be wagging the dog. It reminds me of another case, in which a young real estate operator bought control of the shares in Kings Motors, Oxford changed the name, became a high-fling real estate company, saw the share price skyrocket then engineered the privatisation of the comapny, leaving most of the other investors with egg on their faces. Disclosure, I am long LPGL and intend to trade short-term . I think the company is a big money-maker.