Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video 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.
Wobble no they haven't borrowed they did placing
Both court cases are progressing favourably and the Board, under advice from our lawyers, remains confident of the Company's prospects of securing a favourable outcome. This has enabled the Board to secure litigation funding which is expected to be in place to cover the legal
They have never borrowed money
2m is a conditional debt!
And still cap-xx have no debts!
Normally a 60-20-20 split.
These arrangements come in different varieties: maybe "no win, no fee" with the service provider getting a percentage of the damages in the event of success, or a "success fee", where they charge a lower hourly rate with in uplift in the event of success. Other arrangements and variations can be agreed. Two key points are: if the loser is going to have to pay the winner's costs, an arrangement should be in place to cover this, e.g. "after the event" legal costs insurance; and also to draft the agreement so that the lawyers only get their full reward if the damages are actually received, rather than just obtaining a paper judgment with no-one to enforce it on.
No doubt cpx is becoming one of the better companies on aim and looks like it will deliver on the numbers going forwards. Why the sp isn't much higher based on what is currently being achieved is probably down to the aim market. At some point this will change and positive news on the court cases or securing a large deal within the 50m pipeline should result in a sp much higher than the broker forecast of 13p. Whilst it's taken some time to get to this point it's much easier to be holding these feeling confident and more certain of future prospects
So how litigation funding work? If successful does it mean that the funder gets a higher return? Or is it merely a ploy for bidding for the work? In other words "what in it" for both parties
I'm a litigator by trade (please don't hate me) and my experience is that litigation funding for a contentious matter like this is extremely hard to come by unless the prospects of success are very high indeed. So I'm cautiously optimistic, but hope that the quid pro quo for the funder in the event of success is not too excessive.
Just re read I thought it meant next year they would be covered but it's our trading year.
Future legal costs are now covered “The company now has litigation funding offer in place”.
We made a loss of 700k last year so have 1.6m in the bank and a profit expected next year we should be ok. However there is the legal costs this year, have we paid the brunt of it and are now just waiting until court dates in October, I imagine the legal costs will be far greater once we enter court. Hopefully we will settle out of court.
"With FY22 trading in line with expectations, and profitable trading expected to start THIS year" .... could well be Claret
Cash flow positive now.
What are the thoughts on current cash levels ? $A1.6m ?
Indeed, 13p is based on current knowns with the existing trading figures fand leaves further 'significant upside from a Tesla/Maxwell settlement'......
13p seems VERY low under the circumstances.
............The company now has litigation funding offer in place. CAPXX enters FY23 with a small and reducing cash burn and is expected to start to trade profitability this current financial year (FY23) on revenue run rates as low as A$8m. With many new products launched and steady demand growth being seen across the board including Murata products, we still anticipate strong growth in FY23 which should lead to profitability for the group.
With FY22 trading in line with expectations, and profitable trading expected to start this year, and significant upside from a Tesla/Maxwell settlement, we continue to believe CAP-XX is significantly undervalued and iterate our 13p valuation.