17/6 2009 14:48 cyber 0
13677 Måske kan man ikke lide at Berge Larsen har fuldmagter til en samlet værdi af 122.654.328 aktier i DNO. Fuldmagterne gælder udelukkende for dette års generalforsamling i DNO. Berge Larsen har dermed fået fuldmagt til 13,56% af
stemmerne i DNO. Selskaber der kontrolleres af Berge Larsen har yderligere 45.263.220 aktier i DNO. I alt repræsenterer han 18,56% af aktierne i DNO.
stemmerne i DNO. Selskaber der kontrolleres af Berge Larsen har yderligere 45.263.220 aktier i DNO. I alt repræsenterer han 18,56% af aktierne i DNO.
Der kan åbenbart ske et eller andet på GF....det er dog i min verden relativt vanskeligt at se hvilken nyhed at DNO i den forbindelse skulle gå ned på specielt set i relation til at der er budkrig på peer ADDAX Petroleum.
Vi er nok klogere i morgen. Jeg har købt 20K til mine 15K, så synes efterhånden er det er ved at være nok....men er da glad for at jeg har tradet dem indtil videre med pænt overskud. Det skal da så åbenbart tæres på nu.
Vi er nok klogere i morgen. Jeg har købt 20K til mine 15K, så synes efterhånden er det er ved at være nok....men er da glad for at jeg har tradet dem indtil videre med pænt overskud. Det skal da så åbenbart tæres på nu.
17/6 2009 16:53 cyber 013695 Innlegg av: Gjest (17.06.09 15:44 ), lest 60 ganger
DNO: Ledelsen er noen luringer...
nå har deres venner ljørt kursen rett i dass og dermed blir bonusprogrammet en kjempegavepakke til Ledelsen
greit nok om de leverer, men faen er at de for lengst vet hva de sitter på som vil kjøre ursen til himmels
de bare holder kjeft til bonusprogrammnet er vedtatt
og det har jo Larsen stemmer nok til å sørge for
DNO: Ledelsen er noen luringer...
nå har deres venner ljørt kursen rett i dass og dermed blir bonusprogrammet en kjempegavepakke til Ledelsen
greit nok om de leverer, men faen er at de for lengst vet hva de sitter på som vil kjøre ursen til himmels
de bare holder kjeft til bonusprogrammnet er vedtatt
og det har jo Larsen stemmer nok til å sørge for
17/6 2009 17:03 collersteen 013700 Interessant konspirationsteori...... intet i Norge (og i DNO i særdeleshed) kan overraske mig.
17/6 2009 17:07 JCBN 013701 Hjemme igen.
Tak for svarene...
Nu får vi se hvad der sker... det kan vel næsten ik toppe GES' gf :)
Tak for svarene...
Nu får vi se hvad der sker... det kan vel næsten ik toppe GES' gf :)
18/6 2009 17:37 cyber 013798 Har nogen hørt nyt fra GF-en i dag?
Her er dagens program:
http://hugin.info/36/R/1318080/307661.pdf
Her er dagens program:
http://hugin.info/36/R/1318080/307661.pdf
jeg kom for tidligt ind i går. Men udover betalingskommentaren har jeg ikke set noget.
18/6 2009 10:49 collersteen 013770 Ret så stor bøde..... men okay, det er jo også en cowboybørs.
DNO: The Board of Directors of Oslo Børs imposes violation charges
http://www.newsweb.no/index.jsp?messageId=240645
The Board of Directors of Oslo Børs has resolved to
impose a violation charge on DNO International ASA of
five times the company's annual listing fee, i.e. NOK
1,177,785, for a breach of the duty to publicly
disclose inside information as required by Section 5-
2 (1) of the Securities Trading Act, cf. Section 17-4
(3) and Section 15-1 of the Securities Trading Act,
cf. Section 13-1 of the Securities Trading
Regulations. The Board also resolved to impose a
violation charge on DNO International ASA of five
times the company's annual listing fee, i.e. NOK
1,177,785, for a breach of the duty to provide
information pursuant to Section 24 (7) of the Stock
Exchange Act. These violation charges amount in total
to NOK 2,355,570.
Brief description of the breach of the duty to
publicly disclose information
On 10 October 2008, DNO International ASA sold
43,873,960 shares from the company's holding of its
own shares at a price of NOK 4 per share. The sale
represented 4.8% of the company's share capital. Oslo
Børs is of the opinion that the identity of the
purchaser and the circumstances surrounding the sale
were subject to a duty of public disclosure since the
acquisition and the ownership could be expected to be
of significance for investors' evaluation of one of
the company's most important projects.
On 23 March 2009, Oslo Børs instructed the company to
publicly disclose further information about the
transaction on the basis that Oslo Børs considered
that this represented inside information. Oslo Børs
is of the opinion that DNO did not carry out this
instruction. The shares were held by brokers and
registered in favour of the buyer before subsequently
being sold into the market in smaller parcels.
Information on the identity of the counterparty to a
sale of a company's own shares is not normally in
itself inside information, but the circumstances of
the transaction may cause the identity of the
counterparty to be inside information. It is unusual
for a company's holding of its own shares to be sold
to a single investor by bilateral negotiation. A sale
in this manner may, for example, be seen to have
similarities to and be comparable with a private
placement.
Brief description of the breach of the duty to
provide information to Oslo Børs
In its communication with Oslo Børs on the question
of inside information, DNO refrained from providing
information about the transaction in reply to the
direct questions asked by Oslo Børs. The company only
disclosed the identity of the counterparty to the
sale when it became aware that Oslo Børs was already
in possession of information about the transaction.
The company's incomplete response made it
significantly more difficult for Oslo Børs to carry
out its statutory duties as a supervisory body.
Moreover, the company refrained from providing
information about its contacts with the counterparty,
and described the transaction as a routine broker-to-
broker transaction even though Oslo Børs is of the
opinion that the company must have been aware that
Oslo Børs needed this information in order to
evaluate the question of whether the company was
under a duty to publicly disclose information about
the transaction.
Oslo Børs also notes that the company has, over a
protracted period, sought to delay the progress of
the case and hamper investigations carried out by
Oslo Børs. In addition, the company's breach appears
to be wilful in nature. Oslo Børs notes here the
importance of companies and member firms answering
the questions it raises with them, and the importance
of truthful answers. The success of the preventative
measures carried out by Oslo Børs in respect of price
quotation is dependent on this co-operation. In view
of the statutory supervisory function for which Oslo
Børs is responsible and the importance of the
preventative measures it carries out in respect of
price quotation, Oslo Børs considers it important to
take a strict approach to this case.
The decision can be appealed to the Stock exchange
Appeals Committee. Any appeal must be submitted
within two weeks.
DNO: The Board of Directors of Oslo Børs imposes violation charges
http://www.newsweb.no/index.jsp?messageId=240645
The Board of Directors of Oslo Børs has resolved to
impose a violation charge on DNO International ASA of
five times the company's annual listing fee, i.e. NOK
1,177,785, for a breach of the duty to publicly
disclose inside information as required by Section 5-
2 (1) of the Securities Trading Act, cf. Section 17-4
(3) and Section 15-1 of the Securities Trading Act,
cf. Section 13-1 of the Securities Trading
Regulations. The Board also resolved to impose a
violation charge on DNO International ASA of five
times the company's annual listing fee, i.e. NOK
1,177,785, for a breach of the duty to provide
information pursuant to Section 24 (7) of the Stock
Exchange Act. These violation charges amount in total
to NOK 2,355,570.
Brief description of the breach of the duty to
publicly disclose information
On 10 October 2008, DNO International ASA sold
43,873,960 shares from the company's holding of its
own shares at a price of NOK 4 per share. The sale
represented 4.8% of the company's share capital. Oslo
Børs is of the opinion that the identity of the
purchaser and the circumstances surrounding the sale
were subject to a duty of public disclosure since the
acquisition and the ownership could be expected to be
of significance for investors' evaluation of one of
the company's most important projects.
On 23 March 2009, Oslo Børs instructed the company to
publicly disclose further information about the
transaction on the basis that Oslo Børs considered
that this represented inside information. Oslo Børs
is of the opinion that DNO did not carry out this
instruction. The shares were held by brokers and
registered in favour of the buyer before subsequently
being sold into the market in smaller parcels.
Information on the identity of the counterparty to a
sale of a company's own shares is not normally in
itself inside information, but the circumstances of
the transaction may cause the identity of the
counterparty to be inside information. It is unusual
for a company's holding of its own shares to be sold
to a single investor by bilateral negotiation. A sale
in this manner may, for example, be seen to have
similarities to and be comparable with a private
placement.
Brief description of the breach of the duty to
provide information to Oslo Børs
In its communication with Oslo Børs on the question
of inside information, DNO refrained from providing
information about the transaction in reply to the
direct questions asked by Oslo Børs. The company only
disclosed the identity of the counterparty to the
sale when it became aware that Oslo Børs was already
in possession of information about the transaction.
The company's incomplete response made it
significantly more difficult for Oslo Børs to carry
out its statutory duties as a supervisory body.
Moreover, the company refrained from providing
information about its contacts with the counterparty,
and described the transaction as a routine broker-to-
broker transaction even though Oslo Børs is of the
opinion that the company must have been aware that
Oslo Børs needed this information in order to
evaluate the question of whether the company was
under a duty to publicly disclose information about
the transaction.
Oslo Børs also notes that the company has, over a
protracted period, sought to delay the progress of
the case and hamper investigations carried out by
Oslo Børs. In addition, the company's breach appears
to be wilful in nature. Oslo Børs notes here the
importance of companies and member firms answering
the questions it raises with them, and the importance
of truthful answers. The success of the preventative
measures carried out by Oslo Børs in respect of price
quotation is dependent on this co-operation. In view
of the statutory supervisory function for which Oslo
Børs is responsible and the importance of the
preventative measures it carries out in respect of
price quotation, Oslo Børs considers it important to
take a strict approach to this case.
The decision can be appealed to the Stock exchange
Appeals Committee. Any appeal must be submitted
within two weeks.
