Phorm Corp Share Price (PHRM)

As expected St James's Palace have Exited... http://www1.sjp.co.uk/~/media/Files/S/sjp-group/document-library/long-unit-trust-reports/ut-long-uk-absolute-return-31mar2012.pdf Phorm 1,075,568 http://www1.sjp.co.uk/~/media/Files/S/sjp-group/document-library/long-unit-trust-reports/ut-long-uk-absolute-return-sep2012.pdf Phorm 1,075,568 http://www1.sjp.co.uk/~/media/Files/S/sjp-group/document-library/long-unit-trust-reports/2013/uk-absolute-return-long-report-31-mar13.pdf Phorm not mentioned. Another Previously Mentioned Example.. http://factsheets.financialexpress.net/scow/PXB.pdf "Mood Media and Phorm also fell, however we exited these positions over the month." I get the impression that the fund was managed by Blackrock on behalf of Scottish Widows. I wonder if this [ex]holding was in anyway related to, http://whl.financialexpress.net/investegate/articlePrint.aspx?id=200911041418229523B

phorm announce that they have repaid the £1.5m cln - and paid interest of £300k. That's 20% and the full amount owed for the whole of the first year's life of that loan. So ask yourselves - WHY? There was no advantage for phorm in settling early - it would cost them £300k no matter when they paid up - but even if they didn't NEED the £1.5m, they could have banked it and made interest which would go towards lowering the costs. Bottom line - it seems extremely likely that phorm did not CHOSE to pay £1.8m at this time - it's far more likely that the lender called the loan in under the clause that gave them the right to do so if phorm were unable to raise a further £10m - which the company failed to do.

KNIGELK.... The £10m "requirement" is attached to the loan note that was announced on 20th March - specifically, the passage that states that.... "In the event of the Company failing to raise additional funding of at least £10m, the investor may at its option and at any date falling at least 6 weeks after completion of the first tranche, exercise its right to require the Company to redeem all, but not part only, of the Loan Note by serving at least 1 month's notice of such intention to require redemption." Obviously, the original lender is not obliged to call in the loan but it CAN and that means there's a level of uncertainty and effectively means that the board are not fully in control of the company's future. The latest announcement also raises other issues - for anyone reading beyond the part about the maxed-out share issue and even more borrowed money. ertugrul is being neutered as his control of the board is split and Andrew Croxson is stepping aside. Coming as it does alongside this last-gasp fund-raiser, it's reasonable to speculate that those decisions were forced on the company. In addition, the issue of 130,000,000 shares may not even be "lawful" as the company is still bound by its memorandum which places a 220,000,000 authorised shares limit - and the company just exceeded that WITHOUT giving existing shareholders a vote - and that's very naughty. In addition - read the 20th March announcement and compare it with the new one. In March, the company claimed that it was undertaking a fund-raising to start operations in China and to fund existing operations in Turkey - but the latest press release says that all of the new money is going into Turkey. So what's the truth? All in all - a real mess that raises more questions than money.

Thanks KN :)

Depends on your viewpoint - some believe the company require at least £10 million so this fund raising may only be a short term solution. However maybe the company is closer to generating meaningful revenue and further substantial capital raisings may not be required. TBH this is such a complex company with a long history that unless you DYOR here best to watch from the side lines (unless you are looking for a short term trade) gl

What is the finance situation after today's RNS? Can anyone please clarify?