London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I think fairness was something the judge was leaving for this meeting..isa pointed that out earlier i believe.
Franky, I am not a lawyer but I imagine the full terms of the SOA - including those related to fairness - were thoroughly examined by the judge prior to him first allowing it to go forward for the creditors' vote. With the evidence now before him of a virtually unanimous vote in favour of the scheme by Amigo's creditors - including the FOS - I doubt there would be any basis on which the judge would now seek to amend the terms of the SOA or delay its implementation.
I may be wrong but do not anticipate tomorrow's hearing to be either lengthy or inconclusive. We will soon know....Finger's crossed...
I think we are all wondering 'what is the worst it can be that I would accept?' Franky - nobody wants to lose their investment, their hard earned money that they have every right to keep, just as much as customers who may or may not have been dealt with appropriately by Amigo. Many of us have families and have no desire to lose money that could be used to help support them, however much we have put in or put at 'risk' nobody wants to lose it. What we have is a new board and essentially a new company that wants to do right by customers going forward. Many others who operate in this sector do not have the same moral compass that Gary seems to have. I'm not sure a raise is entirely appropriate given the loss that many shareholders have already suffered, the commitment to sharing profits, no dividends and possibly alongside an adjustment to the LTIP for the BoD. Lets see what tomorrow brings. Hopefully a resolution that all sides can be happy with. I'm also sure that the judge doesn't want 400 Amigo staff members to lose their jobs because a fair compromise couldn't be reached or that customers would have even fewer options for credit available to them other than loan sharks or similar. Hopefully the FCA can see this too.
There would be no need for another vote.
Franky
Quite possible a share rights issue, but I feel that if that is the case your time prospect is probably about right. If it was at 16p ods then it’s a no brainer for me but I hope and feel that tomorrow might be a cut and dry decision, if it’s a No then there might be a negotiation and a new vote, but given the length of work and response so far I hope not
I have this spidey sense that the court won t sanction on the day amd will take a good week to detrmine all the factors around fairness. We have an Mcap in the region of 180m and so to raise another 20m may only require 5 shares to be worth going forward raising another 30m for the immediate pot. My understanding is that equity raises are expensive and timely but maybe we have already prepared this as 'Plan B' and are largely ready for such a placing at say 16-17p? I could stomach that asbyou would still have to believe on relending we ll be north of 35p. With that and slow build in growth of loan book it may take until the end of the year to see 50-60p but i d probably hang around for it...this is pure conjecture and not what i want but it would be entirely 'Amigoesque' if it were reality and fits with the LT II mindset..thoughts anyone?
Soundsrisky, a good perspective. JJ
Soundsrisky - you raise a good question
What will the judge actually be able to do tomorrow? I assumed it would be a yes or no for acceptance of the scheme based upon
1. Voter response to the proposal
2. Objections by the FCA and others (Camel etc)
3. Due diligence by the court that the process has been follow lawfully.
Can they change the SOA arrangement as it was passed already and voted upon? I’m not so sure on that.
Any sensible comments appreciated!
I would say when the judge is balancing the benefits to customers vs shareholders etc then posting things like 50p on Monday etc doesn't help our argument too much. Especially if he pops in for a quick look on the LSE board. The fact is nobody really knows that the SP will be. It will depend on MIC continuing to sell, JPM/Bybrook buying. Potential restrictions put in place by the judge, relending etc. Lets stop with the price prediction and just focus on Amigo 2.0 getting the approval to launch, as it should, and we'll see where that takes us. GLA
By Monday...