We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
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.
The original RNS for the acquisition was dated 12/11/2019
https://www.investegate.co.uk/bushveld-minerals-ld/rns/potential-investment-in-enerox-gmbh/201911121632051728T/
The next was dated 19/12/2019
https://www.investegate.co.uk/bushveld-minerals-ld/rns/update-on-investment-in-enerox-gmbh---enerox--/201912191502145403X/
Between those two dates on the 2/12/2019 the 'Liable for Dissolution' was entered on the Alberta Corporations website
https://albertacorporations.com/garnet-commerce-ltd
Strange that they would make that entry in between 'potentially' investing and investing in EHL. I reckon it's Garnet or individuals linked to Garnet that have been playing a long game to get Enerox.
Gowling acted for both Bushveld and Garnet in this deal and described it as a joint venture. The use of Gowling must have been at Bushvelds insistence due to the fact the company have used them before, so up to a point in time everything seemed ok and everyone was on the same page. Garnet then raised the litigation after the formal market announcement, quite why their grievances did not get raised earlier is a bit of a mystery but clearly its delayed things.
Just because a company may be liable for dissolution doesn't' mean its shareholders don't have deep pockets Alpha.
The law firm used by Bushveld to set this up and the fundraiser appears to be Gowling WLG.
https://gowlingwlg.com/getmedia/9d5b28cd-3302-4699-ae79-5f12f80f0191/corporate-deal-highlights.pdf.xml
Secondary Fundraisers
BUSHVELD MINERALS LTD
Acted for Bushveld Limited on a US$65 million secondary financing which included a $US35 million loan note convertible into Bushveld ordinary shares and a US$30 million production financing agreement, each with Orion Mine Finance.
Mergers and Acquisitions
BUSHVELD MINERALS LTD
Acted for Bushveld Minerals Ltd on its acquisition, along with its joint venture partner Garnet Commerce Limited, via a new joint venture company Enerox Holdings Limited, of Enerox GmbH, a manufacturer of Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries in Austria (VRFBs).
Lindon
it is as it says it is - "Voluntarily Dissolving A Company In Alberta Means Legally Shutting It Down" - the status 'liable for dissolution' is not simply a standard legal term that applies to all companies (like 'limited by shares') - it is s specific state that the company is put into, and in the case of Garnet Commerce Ltd it was done on the 2nd of December 2019
https://kahanelaw.com/dissolving-alberta-corporations-voluntarily/
My understanding is that being classed as ‘liable for dissolution’ in Alberta is no reflection on a company’s financial standing or that its in danger of being dissolved. It’s just a legal term.
It’s simply means that IF the owner does ever decide to remove from it being an listed as an Alberta company - that company has to be voluntarily dissolved first.
Uksteveg - Dean Peterson kept referring to some unnamed 'numbered' company that he wanted all or a significant part of his Enerox Holdings Limited to be held in and was also insistent throughout that Garnet not be mentioned in press releases from BMN. Now this might all of course be simply because he is a very private person and wishes to remain in the shadows - something that seems to have changed somewhat now.
Garnet will have taken the dissolution route themselves rather than it being a forced action, i.e. company being liquidated. They would not be able to do this if they were not solvent. It would seem the dissolution is dependant on what transpires from this court case. This legal action will certainly be costing a lot.
Please forgive my simple query-If garnet are in process of dissolution, how can they be the claimant in proceedings ?
shouldn't the proceedings be stopped unless they provide security for costs?
Does FM know the pursuer is skint, if it is?
KN
I'm sure some one on here used to publish price point hourly / daily trade logs like you would use if you were trading, from a distant memory other investors were asked to and supplied their own personal data ( which they did : ) - and another guy that was linked in to that group and private chat groups operated a wave service to lead the sheeples onwards.
They were sells today....
The ‘unknowns’ could be simple case of a couple of insti‘s moving holdings around.
3 of the trades took place @ 16:05 or after the one that took place around 2ish was a firm buy as it was the same price as the ask at that time. Logic says it’s the shorts closing but as mentioned above time will tell. Coincidence it seems though with the expected news flow from BMN. I’ll leave it there ;)
If it's not shorts closing it's Duferco selling.
The converse also applies YTSS. Games afoot once again to obfuscate.
Agree YTSS if they are true trades we will see a major rise tomorrow. Otherwise ignore what you read on this BB regarding trades as nobody really knows what the MM's are playing at.
If all these large trades are shorts, how did the SP not rise
I wonder if our North American shorters have decided not to risk their gains on the outcome of the trial
19-Jan-22 16:05:38 9.70 1,000,000 Unknown* 97.00k
19-Jan-22 16:20:44 9.70 2,000,000 Unknown* 194.00k
19-Jan-22 16:19:27 9.70 1,500,000 Unknown* 145.50k
19-Jan-22 14:45:13 9.80 1,000,000 Unknown* 98.00k
19-Jan-22 16:05:38 9.70 1,000,000 Unknown* 97.00k
you are FM
is FM expecting it today ?
FM it is not judged until it is judged, which should be very soon
has to be more than that or it would have been thrown out by now
pb940 - indeed they really seem a be chancing their arm.
Been reading through the RNS's related to the Enerox investment and I'm unsure what Garnetts problem is with the structure.
From what I can see VRFB-H own 50% of EHL which owns 100% Enerox
50% of EHL is made up of Bushveld, Acacia and Mustang through VRFB-H.
The other 50% presumably wholly or partially includes Garnett
Mustang investing in VRFB-H takes nothing away from EHL which still only holds 50%.
Garnett saying they wanted private investors doesn't make sense when 50% isn't already.
Plus, if the Joint Venture Agreement allowed for either private or public investors what are they arguing about?