I am glad you are getting back to the central point of what Lind can and can't do. You are still relying on the terms of the loan agreement. When this is in default, the loan agreement has been TERMINATED. Everything you said no longer applies and the only thing you have to consider is what is in the RNS:
"To date, the Company has not received any demand notification to call the loan in accordance with the default provisions"
Right now, you should only concern yourself with the "default provisions" which neither you nor I have the details of. The most accurate information we have is once again in the RNS:
"With the recent suspension, the Company has fully utilized these allowed days and subsequently provides Lind with certain additional rights under the agreement, including the ability to demand re-payment of the loan".
When 5 days suspension is used up, they have given the lenders additional rights which is full repayment. This would be in cash as the shares are worthless so it is not deemed repayment. When that doesn't happen, then I would be flabbergasted to think that Lind is not given the ability to call in the receivers under the "DEFAULT PROVISIONS".
Like I said, that is pretty standard when lenders lend money. When you default, they will call in the loan which normally would give them powers to call in receivers. Furthermore, they are lenders of last resort. They would not be in business if they can't stitch a decent loan agreement up.
you still haven't fully digested the RNS and what happens when banks call in a loan so I suggest you do further research.
All I am doing is spelling out the RNS in layman's terms but you are bring other mumbo jumbo to confuse people.
But once again people, I am only responding to arguments put forth by Oma and Bobo. I am NOT saying that this WILL go into receivership. I am just spelling out what the RNS is saying. To twist it any other way is misleading and wholly irresponsible OMA.
I openly admitted that I got the terms administration and receivership the wrong way round and apologised if I had miss led anyone. You should perhaps admit that the rest of your statements where wrong as others have been provided with more clarity as a result of the exchange
LIND have security over Texas and Shares. RRL don’t want to issue shares but will raise the cash, in due course. The RNS indicates a stand off until each party has the assurances and capability it needs.
The RNS also indicates states that the company will remain in suspension as it’s “defence” against LIND. As I pointed out that is because LIND don’t want Texas (their physical asset security) and RRL are not prepared to issue shares for trading.
You need to remember that RRL will have had approval to remain in suspension and I suggest that they have cited this position as being in the best interest of shareholder and price stability.
Your concept of a receiver being called in, taking control, stripping assets etc. ...whatever !
The relish with which you latch on to anything negative about Range is sad to watch. This latest RNS re Lind must have made you jump up and down with glee but the truth is why would they call in the Loan now when they can re-negotiate with Range and increase their return on their loan. Lind are a professional outfit, they are not gong to behave like a spoilt child throwing their toys out of the pram, partly because they know that they will get their money by April latest. In my experience, companies only go legal to recover money if they are concerned that they will not get that money back. Apart from that, they are in the business of lending money to companies such as Range, what kind of message would it send to prospective future business if they behaved in such an unreasonable way?
The crazy thing is, I made a valid and correct post which Oma challenged and got proven wrong. He then tried to jumble everything by going into technicalities which I have and he has no knowledge of, saying only secured on texas, admin, receivership, shareholder's approval bla bla and you turned around and said I jumbled it. Once again, go to my original post and OMA's response. That will settle it for you and I shall wait for an apology.
The fact remains aside all this distracting argument about technicalities, is that the RNS tells us this is in default. No one has been told what the default clauses are but we have been told Lind can call in the loan. If you don't know what that means when a loan gets called in and you can't pay, please research it.
Lind is a lender of last resort and if they haven't stitched up their loan agreement water tight, I would be flabbergasted. Once again, the RNS tells us that Lind can call in the loan for the full $7.25m. GO READ THE RNS PROPERLY.
Jeeesssus. How complicated to you want to make it?
Is this carve character linked to that share prophet website as his constant hammering of range is very similar to theirs...he sure as hell doesnt post for the benefit of the poor hard done by range shareholders. Takes the watching these type of people, can't be done with these characters.
I haven't jumbled up my points. I am only showing the liquidation information because Omadawn incorrectly said that voluntary winding up of a company does not require shareholder's approval. A distraction from the central point we were discussing. Item two shows it does.
Go back to my original post and see what I posted and how Oma responded. I said Lind can appoint receivers but OMA said only the BOD can. He has since been proven wrong along with other things (like voluntary winding up) and THAT is the central point of the discussion. Don't twist it to suit your view BOBO.
Now he has changed his response even though he cut and paste my original post below. Who is doing the twisting of facts? Only ones here are both of you.
No director in the world would dare wind up a company without a shareholder's approval. He would be liable.
Following the announcement on 11 December, the Board has resolved to appoint Mr. Yan Liu, the Company's current Chief Executive Officer and, Mr. Zhiwei Gu to the Board with immediate effect.
The Company's Board of Directors is now comprised of Mr. David Yu Chen, Mr. Yan Liu, Ms. Juan (Kiki) Wang, and Mr. Zhiwei Gu.
In line with the Company's commitment to reduce its G&A costs, all new appointees to the Board have agreed to a lower level of remuneration compared to previous Directors.If I was being done over. One would be getting a very large pay RISE not a pay cut to help keep cost down.
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.