ON FRIDAY 14th FEB 2003, BGY PREVAILED BUT ON MARCH 10th 2003, WE MUST FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS....... SEND THIS LETTER!, THEN MAKE SOME NOISE! AND VOTE 10% OR "NO" TO THE RESTRUCTURE.... CREDITORS YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! DONT TRY AND SCREW US!


If you agree you face a real threat from creditors of BGY to take away your voting rights - cut and paste this e-mail to:

jill.kwan@fsa.gov.uk
OR
enquiries@fsa.gov.uk

or post to:
The Financial Services Authority,
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London E14 5HS
Tel:
020 7676 1000

ALSO SEND YOUR VIEWS TO THE FOLLOWING EMAILS RECOMMENDING THAT WE INTEND TO VOTE "10% OR NO" ON MARCH 10TH

Paul.heward@british-energy.com (BE relations officer).
lynn.cuthbertson@british-energy.com (BE relations coordinator)
letters.editor@ft.com (Financial Times)
charles.moore@telegraph.co.uk (Editor Telegraph)


WE NEED MEDIA EXPOSURE ON THIS! LETS GIVE THE CREDITORS A RUN FOR THIER MONEY! REMEMBER TO KEEP SENDING UNTIL YOU RECIEVE AKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECIEPT AND LET US KNOW!
____________________________________________________________________________

The Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5HS


17th February 2003


Dear Sir

Waiver of British Energy Shareholders Voting Rights

In the event of receipt by the FSA of any application or notification of Waiver of FSA Rules from British Energy plc or representatives of its creditors, to suspend or waive the voting rights of British Energy shareholders, I require that you notify me directly as soon as practicable.

Your objectives and guidelines expressly require that (8.3.1 (2)) " The waiver would not result in undue risk to persons whose interests the rules are intended to protect". I am informing you that such any such waiver of my voting rights as a British Energy shareholder will constitute an undue risk to my interests.

In view of the ongoing FSA Investigation into the British Energy Aug 14 2002 "Call to Analysts" to establish whether investors have been misled on the financial viability of British Energy at that time, I also wish to state that a waiver on British Energy's shareholder voting rights, now or in the near future, will be seriously prejudicial to the outcome of your investigation, and to my interests.

The FSA is charged with the duty to maintain confidence in the UK financial system, and to secure protection for its consumers, and I look to the FSA to uphold these charges. If British Energy or its creditors force a similar treatment of its shareholders to Marconi or Energis, the FSA has an obligation to enforce fair and impartial treatment of investors. Without this, investor confidence will suffer further great damage and the entire financial market will feel the effects for years to come.

Yours faithfully

____________________________________________________________________

P.S. If the FSA replies asking for more info regarding this letter. Please direct them to the following link which proves our claims and rights according to thier Handbook.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/vhb/html/sup/SUPtoc.html

Here is the reply from BE to my rather abrupt-and-to-the-point e-mail addressed as 'Shareholder dissatisfaction', I have removed my real name and e-mail details to protect my identification from bashers/rampers/perverts/whatever.

Any comments????

PH 1/LC


21 February 2003

E-mail:

Dear Mr 'Magreeba'

Thank you for your e-mail dated 19 February 2003.

As I stated in my short e-mail yesterday, your e-mail has been passed to my colleagues, including the Company Secretary.

Dealing with the points, as raised in your e-mail, I make the following comments:

1. Paragraph 1 - As you recognise, the Board of British Energy continue to focus on delivering a successful restructuring whilst rebuilding a company which can compete in the UK energy market. However, there remains a risk that the Company will not be able to implement the Restructuring Proposals, in which case the Company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings. In that event, it is highly unlikely that there would be any return to shareholders.

2. Paragraph 2 - Regarding your comment "driven by the Board under direct instruction of HMG ".

The Board of British Energy is not working under the instructions of HMG. Clearly the Company does need to meet the terms of the Credit Facility provided by the Government which included the approval of the restructuring principles set out last November.

It is also important to note, as the Chairman stated in his address at the EGM on 10 February 2003, "the reality is that the Government is willing to provide substantial value to British Energy to enable it to restructure and hopefully to support long term financial viability".

3. Paragraph 2 - Regarding your comment "the present plans for restructure and survival ignore entirely the enormous and substantial interest of shareholder investment".

The Board's focus has been on achieving a successful restructuring to ensure the long term financial viability of the Company. Without achieving the agreement of the significant creditors to the restructuring proposals over the last couple of months, it would have been impossible for the Company to avoid insolvency proceedings. It is incorrect to say that the "present plans ignore shareholders "because, as announced on 14 February 2003, the Board is considering the issue of new shares and warrants to existing shareholders, which would need to be approved by the significant creditors.

4. Paragraph 2 - "it now appears that shareholders are likely to be left with very little indeed (perhaps nothing)".

I refer you to the announcement of 28 November 2002 which stated that "given the magnitude of the financial problems facing the Company, the proposed restructuring will require certain significant creditors to compromise their claims and is expected to lead to a very significant dilution of the interests of existing shareholders".

The position, as announced on 14 February 2003, has not changed fundamentally in that the Company is stating that the return, if any, to existing shareholders will represent a very significant dilution. Contrary to media comment, British Energy has not quantified the level of dilution.

5. Paragraph 3 - Again, the Board has not altered its message to existing shareholders regarding the very significant level of dilution which they would undergo. Please note the relevant statements in the announcement of 28 November 2002, the shareholder circular regarding disposal of interests in Bruce Power issued on 20 January 2003 and the announcement of 14 February 2003.

6. Paragraph 4 - As stated above, the Company has given a consistent message to shareholders regarding the very significant level of dilution. There has been no "devious timing schedule engineered by the Board". The process, as outlined in the Company's announcement of
28 November 2002, was being adhered to.

7. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 - I note your very strong concerns and, as I've said earlier these have been relayed, to the Company Secretary.

Yours sincerely
For BRITISH ENERGY plc





Paul Heward
Director - Investor Relations

forfaiter - 21 Feb'03 - 17:42 - 3430 of 3590


Well its surprising what shareholder power can achieve...its about time this country followed the US and started slapping these clowns with class actions..... shareholders receiving anything less than 10% is a disgrace....and that is scant consolilation for the poor beggers who bought in on flotation......

The HMG have done a good job of playing the creditors off against the shareholders...when in reality they are to blame....I have never bought this lets blame the previous management carp....what management could have dealt with a 40% drop in electricity prices...?

Now the HMG are sitting back allowing the creditors to carve the pie up for themselves....whats more the press have not picked up on the HMG involvement in this whole debacle...other than being rescuers .....rescuers ?...more like perpetrators....imho


magreeba - 21 Feb'03 - 17:51 - 3431 of 3590


Agreed forfaiter. I know our individual efforts are unlikely to change the whole situation... but if enough barnacles stick to the hull of the QE2......she has to go to drydock, if you see my analogy!!!

forfaiter - 21 Feb'03 - 18:03 - 3432 of 3590


Sure..shareholders have forced an EGM at LGD....and rumour has it the company is losing customers through the investigation into the previous directors conduct....who are now set to front the new company...

I can't imagine BGY would want to much bad publicity at this delicate stage of its recovery....might just be the difference between a customer signing with BGY or a competitor...

Could be worth finding out if any of the major shareholders are also bondholders....may have a conflict of interest ?

ROBODO - 21 Feb'03 - 18:08 - 3433 of 3590 edit


Well we are certainly not being ignored nor fobbed off with the same reply. That is yet another step closer to our goal but thats all it is IMHO. We must keep up the pressure! One thing that is clearly obvious is that Paul Heward and co. is restricted to replying within the boundarys of the official statements. However, it appears that he is passing on our views to the powers that be.

So just like THEY continue to remind US that about that poxy "significant dilution, if any" statement, I suggest that WE continue to remind THEM that we will continue to vote NO until they give us a better indication of what that dilution % will be. Nov - Feb, that was THEN, this is NOW. As of Friday 14th, the company was saved. However, from here on in, as each shareholder vote goes through, our power to negotiate a better deal diminishes!..... therefore we must keep reminding them of OUR intentions!.... to Vote NO!, NO! and NO!

colinszwed - 21 Feb'03 - 18:32 - 3434 of 3590


Here's a letter from BGY I received YESTERDAY

LETTER BY E-MAIL


PH 1/LC


20 February 2003




Thank you for your email dated 18 February 2003.

I have noted your very strong concerns and conveyed these to my colleagues.

Addressing each of your points in turn:

1. "We have invested money and have a right to vote "

In the Stock Exchange Announcement of 14 February, British Energy stated that one of the conditions for the Restructuring was Shareholder Approval, if required. It did not say that Shareholder Approval will not be required as some of the press comment suggested. At this stage, it is impossible for the Company to confirm whether Shareholder Approval will or will not be required.

2. ''And unless a percentage dilution can be agreed before the 10 March meeting "

As stated in the Company's Announcement of 14 February, "the allocation of shares or warrants to existing shareholders in the restructured group has not been agreed and will require the agreement of the Significant Creditors". No date was given in the Announcement for determining this but, in view of the complexity of the process and the number of parties involved, it certainly will not be agreed in March and may not be clear until September 2003, when the Restructuring proposals are due to be approved by the Significant Creditors. However, the final approval is required from the EU Commission in mid 2004.

3. "The choice between Administration and Solvent Restructuring"

As the Company's announcement of 14 February and its previous announcements stated:

"The Board continues to believe that the proposed restructuring is in the best interests of the Company "



Under the proposed restructuring "the Board is considering proposals under which holders of Ordinary shares and A shares would have both shares and warrants in the restructured group" but you should note, as stated previously, that any allocation will be subject to the agreement of the Significant Creditors and the return, if any, to existing shareholders will represent a very significant dilution of their existing interests".

Whereas in the event of the Company having to seek insolvency proceedings, which may occur if the restructuring proposals are not met, the Company stated that "it is highly unlikely that there would be any return to shareholders".

I hope that I have been able to address the points you raised.

Yours sincerely

Paul Heward
Investor Relations



MY REPLY TODAY



I thank you for your reply to my e-mail and Paul's letter.
I will make this very clear and it is one I know fellow shareholders will be
supporting.
WE WILL BE VOTING NO TO THE RESTUCTURING PROPOSALS UNLESS WE GET ASSURANCES
AS TO THE 'SIGNIFICANT DILUTION ' % THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE TO RECEIVE.
We cannot trust the company or the significant creditors any more and we are
and will let British Energy go into liquidation compared to the alternative
proposals you quoted in your letter to myself and other shareholders (which
have been posted on BB's on the internet community).
We are prepared to go for administration as the alternative in our view (and
from your parrot response) is at best warrants.
WE MUST HAVE CLEARER INDICATIONS OR IT IS NO

ROBODO - 21 Feb'03 - 19:57 - 3435 of 3590 edit


Ahhh! nothing in this world beats an ice cold Stella!.... buuuuuurp! 'scuse me!... party on peeps! have a good one!

Robo :)

magreeba - 21 Feb'03 - 20:04 - 3436 of 3590


Not bad colinz.........we've got to tough it out. LOL.

jdobrucki - 22 Feb'03 - 11:01 - 3437 of 3590


ref colinszwed.....had the same problem with ENERGIS....shareholders voted in the directors..who mismanaged the company...then voted for a bank-robbing, bond-holdup administration and they called that a `rescue`. The Creditors then put out a statement that with three months of the plan being accepted, a proppsal for share holders to recieve a small percentage above some impossible future valuation.....would be voted on by the creditors....needless to say that was a year ago and we heard no more from any such vote.....When asked why the directors have sided with the creditors as opposed to shareholders..the answer given was that `you voted us in....this was our discision`....again needless to say cohersion was used by the creditors to swing the directors in their favour...as nearly all still work for the revamped company.....hence if this is the new road the present stock exchange is going down...then it MUST end in a court ruling. Colt-bondholders were beaten in court. Energis, are going to court about Easter.....British Energy shareholders may well have to go down the same road...The legal definition of Theft is `taking without the owners consent.......we voted them in, they make the decision on behalf of the company as a whole...therefore have got around the theft part....and may decide to take it all...even the paltry 1%....and it`s legal.... without going to court...theres nothing you can do.



magreeba - 22 Feb'03 - 18:58 - 3439 of 3590


Here is my response to BE's letter (which I received and posted on this board yesterday):


British Energy plc,
3 Redwood Crescent Peel Park,
East Kilbride,
G74 5PR.

For the attention of Mr Paul Heward.


22nd February 2003.


Dear Paul,

Thank you for your recent reply to my e-mail correspondence. I wish to convey my sincere gratitude to you and your staff for a prompt and personal reply. I cannot begin to imagine the volume and nature of letters and communication that must be crossing your desk at this difficult time. Therefore, I apologise in advance for what may seem a perpetuation of a closed matter but I feel that a final comment from me may be appropriate.

Your reply is clearly an extension of Board policy, for this I make no derogatory accusation; the Doctrine of Collective Responsibility is a tried a tested approach which is all too easily forgotten when the going gets tough (particularly in political circles!).

I am confident, however, that the Board are able to see the looming conflict that will be presented viz a viz the interests of shareholders versus creditors in the coming months. In fact the very basis of this problem is contained within your reply.

If we assume that British Energy survives through a restructuring process, paragraph 3 of your letter reminds me that the Board will consider issuing new shares and warrants to existing shareholders, subject to the approval of significant creditors. It is this point which shareholders find unacceptable. It is obvious that creditors and shareholders have conflicting interests despite the common enterprise. Basically, the more they get, the less that is available to shareholders. In the extreme the dilution may present nothing at all to existing shareholders.

As I stated, this position is a function of the cohesive strength of the creditors (bondholders, banks et al). Shareholders have therefore to consider their position and what leverage they can apply to protect their position. The level of dilution allocated to existing shareholders is not something that can be left to the goodwill of creditors, under such an arrangement there is an imbalance of power, which has no mechanism for an equitable solution.

Page 2

Perhaps the Board will therefore understand that shareholders may not be confident that their best interests will be sufficiently represented over the potential long period of restructure that the Board presently estimate. Although technically the Directors are charged with looking after the owners interests, the practicalities of debt service has effectively compromised their theoretical position. Subsequently, the last remaining weapon of the disparate body of hapless shareholders is their legal and inalienable vote. To vote no in crucial matters may appear crass, but the effect may be devastating.

In summary, the Board should consider this position very carefully and perhaps avert conflict through firm and timely negotiation with all creditors (including HMG) in order to clarify and introduce fairness to the shareholders position. So far it is HMG and creditors who have been banging the drum, I sincerely believe that the time has come when this situation may radically change.

Yours most sincerely,



'Magreeba' BA(Hons), MA, LLB.
Shareholder.


Any comments??????

.

Best of luck for your fight ....

ains


2bn energy rescue package faces US challenge

GUY DIXON Scotland on Sunday


BRITISH Energys proposed 2.1bn rescue could face a legal challenge from the American owners of three of Britains biggest power stations.

AES, which owns the Drax station in North Yorkshire, and AEP, which owns Fiddlers Ferry station in Cheshire and Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire, said they were considering a challenge.

Operators claim the governments rescue package will prevent wholesale prices rising from their current levels, which are uneconomic. The government must seek formal EU approval by March 9 for the rescue package for the East Kilbride company.

Environmental group Greenpeace has already announced that it intends to seek annulment in the European Court on a previous decision to approve a 650m emergency loan facility.

Wholesale electricity prices in the UK have fallen by around 40% since 1998 due to overcapacity and new trading arrangements, prompting British Energy to seek government assistance last year.

In a letter to energy minister Brian Wilson last month, Stuart Staley, AEPs UK managing director, said: "Since the government began subsidising British Energy, several projects have gone into administration, while a number of others are perilously close to insolvency.

"Investors are beginning to view the political risks of the UK energy market as too high to justify continued investment."

Thanks Ains,

Dont really know just how effective we are being, however, as you can see we are getting responses from both BGY and the FSA, so they are at the very least aware of shareholder sentiment to Veto at forthcoming EGMS. Unfortunately its very difficult to estimate just how many shareholders are being reached as well as how many share our views.....

It's always going to be difficult - in an ideal world you need a website and some media attention - plus a shareholder list for a mailing




ains

Ains, website is out.

However, any ideas on how to get hold of a shareholder list?

Cheers

robo

UK power plants under threat as pollution laws bite

By Stuart Penson
LONDON, March 4 (Reuters) - Britain's coal-fired power stations, starved of cash by slumping electricity prices, face a deepening crisis as anti-pollution laws force them to spend millions on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Plant closures loom as stricter limits on emissions demand big investments in pollution-busting technology at a time when weak power prices have hammered down margins on generating electricity in the UK, say industry sources and analysts.

"The generation industry is well aware of environmental pressures and it recognises the need for investment," said David Porter, head of the Association of Electricity Producers.

"Unfortunately, the energy trading climate has been so dismal for so long that at times it is hard to see where investment can come from," he said.

UK power prices have slumped 40 percent since 1998 on government-led moves to introduce greater competition among generators.

Coal stations, which generate a third of the country's power and produce more greenhouse gases than gas-fired plants, face tighter limits on emissions of sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and dust as European Union regulations kick in over the next few years.

"All stations will be affected," said Neil Davies, a policy manager at Britain's Environment Agency.

"Stations without (pollution-cutting) flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment will be pretty vulnerable, you're bound to get some closures," he told Reuters.


DECISION TIME LOOMS

To comply with the European Union's forthcoming Large Combustion Plant Directive on emissions, which comes into force in 2008, all UK coal-fired plants will need FGD kit, analysts say.

Generators will have to commit to these investments by June next year, which is the deadline for opting out of the Directive.

Plants opting out can operate for 20,000 hours after the Directive comes into force. Then they must close.

FGD, which cuts dramatically power stations' output of sulphur dioxide, costs around 200 million pounds for a typical 2,000 megawatt plant, said one industry consultant.

"The problem is, nobody has really got money to spend on pollution abatement," said the consultant, who declined to be named.

Only two of Britain's coal-fired stations have FGD.

Powergen's EONG.DE Ratcliffe plant in central England has a 250-million pounds system in place.

AES Drax AES.N in northern England, the country's biggest power station which faces a cash crisis at its struggles to service hefty debts, is also equipped. LE Group, part of state-owned Electricite de France EDF.UL , is building FGD plants at its West Burton and Cottam stations, while financially crippled British Energy BGY.L is putting in a system at its Eggborough station.

"The project's well underway. We are fitting FGD to units three and four and it will be complete by 2004, it's all going to plan," said a spokesman for British Energy, which is surviving on government loans after low power prices sent it to the brink of collapse last September.

International Power's IPR.L Rugeley station in central England is also planning an FGD system.

Need for the investment in FGD comes as the plant tries to adjust to life without its main sales contract, which ended with last year's collapse of U.S.-owned utility TXU Europe.

Innogy RWEG.DE , which runs three of the country's big coal-fired plants, declined to comment on its plans for FGD and American Electric Power AEP.N , which owns the 2,000-megawatt Fiddler's Ferry and Ferrybridge plants in northern England could not immediately be reached for comment.

Last week the government, outlining a national energy strategy for the next 50 years which called for big cuts in emissions, said coal still had a role in Britain's future energy mix -- but only with the use of cleaner technologies.

Try asking the company secretary - I managed to get an electronic download for free from TWT. Saved nearly a 1K. Alternatively talk to the registrars.



ains

Thanks Ains, will try that out....

robo :)

Hi ains, any idea why BGY USA is now trading at almost $4 per share up by over 1000%!!!!???????

no-one seems to know what the hell is going on!

cheers

Robo :)

wasn't around yesterday ..... no news I can immediately see anywhere - been tracking them today and note they are now up nearly 10% .... there was a lot of green energy comment in the States yesterday

Ains,

FYI,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear XXXXX

Thank you for your e:mail regarding the change in ADR price.

In our interim results announced on 12th December 2002 we noted that the ADR
shares were currently trading in breach of the NYSE Price Criteria as they
had been trading below $1 for a period of more than 30 days and stated that
we were in discussions with NYSE as to how the breach may be cured.

On March 18th 2003 we increased the ratio of ordinary shares to ADRs from 4
to 75. Thus, as of this date the price would rise by a factor of 75/4 =
18.75 for every ADR held - hence the current price of around $3.81.

As indicated in the attached PdF announcement by J P Morgan, you will need
to exchange your existing ADRs for new ones based on 5.33 ADRs for every 100
ADRs surrended (400/75).

I trust that this clarifies the position

Best wishes

Keith Gilroy
Investor Relations

Thanks ..... not what you wanted to hear I guess but makes sense.

I noted the wide trading range today and maybe time to start trading them :-))



ains