Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

A reminder to all members that you agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


2203 Pages (Click to Jump) V  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

CST, CELLESTIS LIMITED
ShareScene.com
post Posted: Oct 11 2011, 12:50 PM
  Quote Post



Posts: 4,290
Thanks: 206


Delisted on 30/08/2011 following confirmation of the implementation of the scheme of arrangement by QIAGEN Australia Holding Pty Ltd.

Regards,
ShareScene.com

 
forrestgump
post Posted: Oct 10 2011, 09:09 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 2,916
Thanks: 632


Tax.

The ATO have now released their official ruling on the tax consequences of the Scheme of Arrangement.

Nothing that was unexpected.

1. The six cent special dividend is fully franked.

2. CGT will be payable on the Capital Gains made from the sale. For the purposes of calculating CGT, the sale price was $3.74





--------------------
Peace
Fforrest

Try to be as good a person as your dog thinks you are.
 
Squiggs
post Posted: Oct 7 2011, 07:35 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 89
Thanks: 14


In Reply To: doc-p's post @ Oct 6 2011, 09:33 PM




 
doc-p
post Posted: Oct 6 2011, 09:33 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 552
Thanks: 56


In Reply To: Bigtosky's post @ Oct 3 2011, 12:07 AM

Me too...hit the wrong button.

 
redpencil
post Posted: Oct 3 2011, 07:25 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 422
Thanks: 71


In Reply To: forrestgump's post @ Oct 2 2011, 12:09 PM

QUOTE
Firstly, significant numbers of shares that had indicated their opposition to the takeover were actually sold into the market (into the hedge funds). This effectively converted the votes of those shares from NO to YES. There were probably several reasons for people doing this. Some may have been simply protecting their own net worth, others were hoping to buy the shares back at lower prices when their compatriots had voted the proposal down.



Maybe, but those that sold would have kept a few and obviously voted no. I suspect the 50% of shareholders required for rejection may well have been achieved if advised differently. We will never know.




Said 'Thanks' for this post: whisper  
 
henrietta
post Posted: Oct 3 2011, 04:57 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 4,271
Thanks: 702


In Reply To: geoffaves@hotmail.com's post @ Oct 3 2011, 04:06 PM

Thanks Geoff or Jeff ( I hope that's right )

I think many of us had exactly the same dreams ................. have just welcomed our second grandchild.

It's all very sad , but we simply have to " move on ".

Cheers
J



--------------------
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." Satchel Paige

"No road is long with good company." Traditional
 

Featured Stock Stories





geoffaves@hotmai...
post Posted: Oct 3 2011, 04:06 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 14
Thanks: 9


In Reply To: Bigtosky's post @ Oct 3 2011, 12:07 AM

Thankyou for your explanatary post Forrest. Makes sense after all the various theories that were put forward concerning the apparent about turn.I suspect that like myself, many shareholders in the Company are unhappy with the sale, irrespective of the price.

I bought a modest 20000 at the IPO after reading of the float in a copy of the Intelligent Investor. I thought at the time it would be great to be part of an Australian business that looked like it had achieved a unique breakthrough in an area of science and medicine. Of course an increase in the value of the shares was a consideration. However my principle motivation to keep the shares and add to their number over the years, to a modest 50000, was not to obtain capital gains but to create a legacy I could pass on to my grandchildren. I have eight grandchildren and I had hoped to add to my stock so that I could leave each of them 10000.

My belief that shares in this company would be a long term asset worthy of being passed on to my family was frequently reinforced by the comments and observations generously given by contributers to this forum, many of whom were obviously members of the scientific and medical professions.

I know that many of the contributers are sophisticated investors and follow the wise concept of never falling in love with a share, but I am not a sophisticated investor but merely an old grandad who would have liked to have left something of tangible and lasting value to his grandchildren. I thought shares in Cellestis would be that legacy but not so. I am trying to find an alternative but so far nothing appeals to me in the way this Company did.



--------------------
arjeff

Said 'Thanks' for this post: henrietta  Ray Cokes  
 
Bigtosky
post Posted: Oct 3 2011, 12:07 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 206
Thanks: 144


Sorry Iggle Piggle but that thanks was meant for Forrest, I hit the wrong button. That's what happens when you are a footy fan and waste your day watching the NRL Grand Final even when you don't follow either team.



Sad to hear the passing of Thumbs Up.



Thanks TU for all you have contributed!!!!!!!!!!!



BigT

 
balance
post Posted: Oct 2 2011, 05:36 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 5,608
Thanks: 600


In Reply To: forrestgump's post @ Oct 2 2011, 12:09 PM

G'day Forrest, my sincere condolences to you and those who knew him. I read the CST board regularly for a long time having been a holder a few times. Even though I did not know him personally it comes as a shock.
Thanks for letting us know.



--------------------
Day Trader: Lowest form of life in the known universe.
Shorter: Can limbo under a day trader.
Investor: Salt of the Earth.Sits to the right of God (Warren Buffet)
Share prices are only ever manipulated down.
Paper losses are not really losses.
Chat site posters always know better & know more than anyone about anything.
I'm 29.
The cheque is in the mail.
 
IgglePiggle
post Posted: Oct 2 2011, 02:15 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 95
Thanks: 84


In Reply To: forrestgump's post @ Oct 2 2011, 12:09 PM

Thanks Forrest for your candid explanation of what transpired behind the scenes.

One small error in the logic of the CSAG stands out to me. For the scheme to be successful, it required 75% of voted shares to vote iin favour AND 50% of voting shareholders to vote in favour. You have clearly indicated that CSAG felt that the first condition would be met under the changed circumstances. But what about the second condition? Without it the scheme would still have failed.



--------------------
"There is more to life than increasing its speed" - Ghandi

Said 'Thanks' for this post: Bigtosky  whisper  doc-p  
 
 


2203 Pages (Click to Jump) V  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING