As usual I am in a rush, I agree with Mr P's hive down suggestion. I would also add that we need to add a vote to go into administration at the EGM, that way the bond holders will realise they might get nothing unless they change their deal. I would suggest ASOG creditors/bond holders to take a 40% haircut in return for 60%of the equity. I have not modelled this so do not know if the maths work, instead I was looking at this from the view that it would value a share at 4x current price so 12p and therefore attract support for a no vote against the current proposal for anyone who bought sub 12p. Musings really, but I do thing we need the nuclear option of being able to vote administration at the EGM.
Morning... you are right of course, but as in any voting arrangement, we are concerned with the votes we win snd not the ones we lose. If we have 10%, there are still 90% against us. One vote here or there is just part of that mass. If someone abstains instead of voting yes... that helps us because itvreduces the number of voters and increases our %.
You are correct in your second paragraph also in that ASOG now represents a significant % of SH's, who by joining ASOG have expressed their desire to get a better deal.
Plan A as it stands will likely be voted down.
Plan B is not a self destruct button for SH as articulated by the ad hoc committee and their advisers. Most SH would rather take their chances with Plan B than be diluted to oblivion.
Plan B is a risk for BH. They will not put they company into administration as the leases of Afren's biggest assets will move to Nigerian Government control and they risk losing much capital. Also for the ad hoc committee their insertion of a BoD chosen by them is problematic for a number of reasons.
For PI SH, a controlled sale of assets in Plan B, may well see a good return, with a more streamlined business - it might not however.
The ad hoc chaps have the opportunity to give Plan C, which may be a modification of plan A.
ASOG are still pushing for a meeting with the ad hoc chaps to represent the views of PI SH and others. And we will try again today.
Hi ynot. You just identified a great point we need 25% of votes CAST. So say final voting turnout is 50% of all shareholders then ASOG represents say 10% of total shareholding but 20% of votes actually cast which as you mention would give ASOG significant influence :)
On my earlier point still confused. Based on above ASOG influence is surely based on all member voting same way or else your influence is diluted. So for those with little to lose , ie. Recent buyers (at say 4p) the best approach is to either vote same way as ASOG or abstain.
In the 1 share trade to signify an impending rns. But. To place a 1 trade just befor the bell would achieve nothing if intended to create any buying. Have replied to asog. If you haven't. Then you should. We really would stand no chance without them. Gla.
Yes it sounds like a contradiction doesnt it, but its not. On a no vote the company can go into liquidation if the bondholders withdraw any further funding or call in a default option or the penal interest becomes unmanageable (there are other reasons but lets stick with those for now). The BHs have the power to keep us out of admin even if we win the no vote.
There is about $1.5 billion of debt st stake. Shareholders own £36million of value. Big gap. In the event of admin, some assets will cease to have value as explained before. Its a black hold what the bondholders will lose. They cant afford us to go into admin. They need a surviving Afren to get their money back. Even if that is through a solution not of their making.
A new board is an option, but requires 50% to remove a director. That is possible. The ASOG committee support Alan Linn, and because we communicate with the company on a daily basis we learn of behind the scenes activity, and we are encouraged. Im not at liberty to disclose any of that activity, and you must accept that for now im afraid. I cannot be drawn on it. There is much more happening than would appear to be the case
'Putting the company into admin is bad for shareholders...' Yet you are campaigning for a 'no' vote, which will almost certainly deliver the company to the administrators. I fail to see the logic here.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.