C G Ltd

[whatsup]

Has to be the biggest B S company on the N Z X imho

[Lewylewylewy]

What about Kim.com's company?

[whatsup]

What about Kim.com's company?

never got off the ground

[minimoke]

Has to be the biggest B S company on the N Z X
I take offense at this post. I am the holder of 2 shares and dont want my company defamed.
PS see the other thread

[whatsup]

.05( and falling) or .002 in the pre consolidation ABSOLUTELY Rubbish co now who would buy into this B S now so much for a BILLION $ company phuhaaaa !!! ( $41 million co atm ) !!!

[whatsup]

.17 when reinstated DOWN now ( and falling ) to .045---.05 it would have been far better to leave RIS as a shell what the h@ll was the former company thinking imho !!

[whatsup]

Has to be the biggest B S company on the N Z X imho

IMHO I see along with the comment above that the majority of CGL are now offering to buy the balance of the shares that they do not own for .011 per share , today they were trading at .07 per share, how does this work, is this a cr@p deal or what !

[blackcap]

IMHO I see along with the comment above that the majority of CGL are now offering to buy the balance of the shares that they do not own for .011 per share , today they were trading at .07 per share, how does this work, is this a cr@p deal or what !

https://nzx.com/files/attachments/232714.pdf

The letter explains it. They have to lodge a "takeover". However they do not want you to sell your shares. Not sure what you are implying there?

and excerpt from report:

CGL is a Code company under the Takeovers Code (the Code). Pursuant to Rule 51 of the Code,
the Trusts issued a Notice of Dominant Ownership on 26 February 2016. By virtue of becoming
the dominant owner of CGL the Trusts are required under Rule 54 of the Code to issue an
acquisition notice (the Acquisition Notice) to all other CGL shareholders offering them the
opportunity to sell their shares to the Trusts. The latest date that the Acquisition Notice can
be sent to CGL shareholders is 29 March 2016.
Pursuant to Rule 57(1) of the Code, the Acquisition Notice, in this case, must specify a cash
sum as consideration for each security certified as fair and reasonable by an Independent
Adviser. The Trusts have engaged Campbell MacPherson Limited (Campbell MacPherson) to
act as Independent Adviser in respect of their obligations under Rule 57(1) the Takeovers Code.
We note that the circumstances of our Report are rare and somewhat counter-intuitive. In
most cases dominant ownership arises from a takeover offer for a public company whereby
the offeror is seeking to acquire 100% of the target company (and often results in the
subsequently de-listing of the target company). In this case the Trusts have undertaken the
reverse takeover of CGL in order to obtain a public listed vehicle for the assets of PAL and such
future assets that the Company may acquire. The Trusts are therefore not seeking to enforce
their right to compulsorily acquire the balance of the shares in CGL. However, the provisions
of the Code still require them to make an offer to all other shareholders to acquire their shares.

[kura]

I can't see any problem here, the Chow-boys were forced to make offer under takeovers code & have stated that they hoped shareholders would retain their shares.

You could question why they trade at 7 cents when fair value is only 1.1 cents, but thats Mr Market !

[whatsup]

https://nzx.com/files/attachments/232714.pdf

The letter explains it. They have to lodge a "takeover". However they do not want you to sell your shares. Not sure what you are implying there?

and excerpt from report:

CGL is a Code company under the Takeovers Code (the Code). Pursuant to Rule 51 of the Code,
the Trusts issued a Notice of Dominant Ownership on 26 February 2016. By virtue of becoming
the dominant owner of CGL the Trusts are required under Rule 54 of the Code to issue an
acquisition notice (the Acquisition Notice) to all other CGL shareholders offering them the
opportunity to sell their shares to the Trusts. The latest date that the Acquisition Notice can
be sent to CGL shareholders is 29 March 2016.
Pursuant to Rule 57(1) of the Code, the Acquisition Notice, in this case, must specify a cash
sum as consideration for each security certified as fair and reasonable by an Independent
Adviser. The Trusts have engaged Campbell MacPherson Limited (Campbell MacPherson) to
act as Independent Adviser in respect of their obligations under Rule 57(1) the Takeovers Code.
We note that the circumstances of our Report are rare and somewhat counter-intuitive. In
most cases dominant ownership arises from a takeover offer for a public company whereby
the offeror is seeking to acquire 100% of the target company (and often results in the
subsequently de-listing of the target company). In this case the Trusts have undertaken the
reverse takeover of CGL in order to obtain a public listed vehicle for the assets of PAL and such
future assets that the Company may acquire. The Trusts are therefore not seeking to enforce
their right to compulsorily acquire the balance of the shares in CGL. However, the provisions
of the Code still require them to make an offer to all other shareholders to acquire their shares.


Agree but who did the take over valuation and what was their valued recemended take over price ?

[blackcap]

Agree but who did the take over valuation and what was their valued recemended take over price ?

I think the inference by the board of CGL here is.... "the takeover price is so low that we really do not want you the shareholder to accept the offer"

On the other hand the company's value probably is 1.1 cents if you divide assets/number of shares on issue. Take from that what you will. The fact the market is valuing these shares at 7 cents places a lot of faith in the CHOW.

[whatsup]

I think the inference by the board of CGL here is.... "the takeover price is so low that we really do not want you the shareholder to accept the offer"

On the other hand the company's value probably is 1.1 cents if you divide assets/number of shares on issue. Take from that what you will. The fact the market is valuing these shares at 7 cents places a lot of faith in the CHOW.

Blackie , yeh IMHO as the pre CGL company RIS was selling at .15---.16 not the .07 it is now, talk about wealth distruction, at the EGM the Chows said in a few years time that this would be a $BILLION company as opposed to the $58 MILLION it is ATM, now that really is placing a lot of faith in WHO and what are their skills ?

[stoploss]

Blackie , yeh IMHO as the pre CGL company RIS was selling at .15---.16 not the .07 it is now, talk about wealth distruction, at the EGM the Chows said in a few years time that this would be a $BILLION company as opposed to the $58 MILLION it is ATM, now that really is placing a lot of faith in WHO and what are their skills ?

Here are some of their skills .... Buyer beware.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2330603/Hotel-boss-gets-120-000-after-dismissal

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/chow-brothers-face-high-court-action-bc-129222


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/9282442/Boutique-market-for-empty-Willis-St-lot


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10391660

[kura]

Gee, well done to dredge up those articles.

I confess to purchasing 1000 shares shortly after consolidation, purely for the entertainment value, and in that respect they have not disapointed me.

[Hectorplains]

Gee, well done to dredge up those articles.

I confess to purchasing 1000 shares shortly after consolidation, purely for the entertainment value, and in that respect they have not disappointed me.

Chow is a breed of dog. Just saying.

[kura]

Having just read the detailed independant advisers report of fair valuation of 1.1 cents
Was interested to note from the report that the off market transfers whereby the Chow-boys sold down their 95% to 88% was at an average price of 3.3 cents.
Being off market transfers, they would have gone to friends & family etc.
It almost seems unfriendly to charge friends & family triple the fair value of the shares.

[Lola]

Having just read the detailed independant advisers report of fair valuation of 1.1 cents
Was interested to note from the report that the off market transfers whereby the Chow-boys sold down their 95% to 88% was at an average price of 3.3 cents.
Being off market transfers, they would have gone to friends & family etc.
It almost seems unfriendly to charge friends & family triple the fair value of the shares.

they must come with "Rights" attached.

[whatsup]

Q Can we believe this "profit " ann ?

[minimoke]

Q Can we believe this "profit " ann ?
Somthing not quite right. $8m income. $8m profit before tax. How do you do that?

Now looking forward to the AGM. With $3m cash in hand i think some shareholder benifits will be coming our way

[whatsup]

Somthing not quite right. $8m income. $8m profit before tax. How do you do that?

Now looking forward to the AGM. With $3m cash in hand i think some shareholder benifits will be coming our way

Yeh right ! remember this outfit is owned by brothel owners isn't it ?

[kura]

Q Can we believe this "profit " ann ?

Looks fine to me (read annual accounts today) $8m profit mainly property revaluation.

Only thing confusing in announcement was EPS of 6 cents, but end of year NTA only 1 cent ( EPS based on average number of shares, but NTA based on shares at end of year )

[whatsup]

Looks fine to me (read annual accounts today) $8m profit mainly property revaluation.

Only thing confusing in announcement was EPS of 6 cents, but end of year NTA only 1 cent ( EPS based on average number of shares, but NTA based on shares at end of year )


A property "profit " is only profit when a property is sold not when there is an increase in its equity, we have all seen properties that have is some stages of their lives have fallen in value below their purchase price for some reason or other and that in their accounts is never recorded as a "loss " !

[kura]

A property "profit " is only profit when a property is sold not when there is an increase in its equity, we have all seen properties that have is some stages of their lives have fallen in value below their purchase price for some reason or other and that in their accounts is never recorded as a "loss " !

Personally I liked how they did it many years ago, when a revaluation increase was booked directly to reserves, rather than being included in profit, but you are welcome to ask the accountants/auditors to change their rules. (Good luck with that ! )