The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
I had a poke about because something seems to have gotten under the SP today
Thanks Danpam for sharing.
Interesting PR piece. No new news. I wonder what it’s for in their process. Either way, hope the King is a regular reader of the website! Ha ha.
Fingers crossed it will trigger other news.
Far from clever. Publishing on the Web while a regulated company and behind a wheel are very far apart comparisons.
Each to their own.
All this chat about rules, regulations, duty bound are only relative if the company chooses to follow them. No different to folks using a hand held device while driving.
No obligation to report a rumour. In fact it is totally illegal any company report anything except fact an intention or future plan I include.
EML cannot communicate behalf workings of Moroccan government. The fact is the company isn't sitting around hands idle, progress us being made we should perhaps concentrate on that?
When the company reports total completion of all aspects of the mine and that no longer anything to do to progress except by way gaining the EISA then I will be concerned.
Didn't have any problem gaining 46 million cornerstone investor. The Tweets are very important these display works ongoing.
I do agree that August and September are unlikely to give us what we want? Does then obtain the Moroccan government hasn't had any meetings were our permit could been discussed?
Time will tell we only hope September brings announcement of a meeting October?
A lot of moving parts at the moment but I would say it’s incredibly unlikely that the CLN conditions will be met by 30 Sep. They have not even had notice of the final ESIA meeting let alone being granted the permit itself. The final funding package then needs to be signed off by all relevant parties.
I think what will be key is if they are able to roll the terms of the CLNs. Whilst PIs might not be made aware of all the specifics of discussions with authorities you can be sure the funders will require full disclosure. Consequently 30 Sep will one way or another be quite an important date I think.
Good question, Westie.
I think it would be disclosable because it would go to value. If the company already knew that it could not obtain an ESIA without completing its works slated to take until October, then it would already be in prospective default of its strategic investment deal, because it could not meet the draw down requirements of being fully funded and permitted by 30 September. Value would be affected because the last CLN guidance would be unlikely to be met (that the CLNs would convert early avoiding material interest) and because the value of the strategic investment entitlement would be known to be only the ~£6m already received and no longer the further ~£40m because that would already known to be unobtainable on the current contract terms.
The value of the strategic investment deal would be affected and I think that information would substantially affect purchasing decision the share price and so require RNS.
Assuming, then, that none of that exists and they're in a deal negotiation and subject to an nda preventing disclosure of either the negotiation or the nda, that leaves two conundrums:
1) it leaves the company vulnerable because if OCP simply drags its heels and 30 Sept passes without proper transparent explanation, the share price could fall and OCP benefit in any JV or other deal that uses the company's value as a pricing measure; and
2) it still wouldn't clearly explain why Graham keeps appearing to mismanage expectations by intimating variations on the ESIA appearing 'soon' in some shape or form (the Midas column lady's impression, for example). It could be that he has perpetually thought the whole deal would close soon and unlock everything, but that has its own challenges because it would mean that he's thought that for a year or so and that would itself suggest the company had little bargain power or control. Also that the market change was no catalyst, which wouldn't add up much either.
Shades of this may feature but I suspect there's something I'm missing as to why the business doesn't feel able to say more or show its progress in the way it sis before.
Let’s not forget Westie, we weren’t notified of the original delay. We only found that out from an update three to six months after the resubmission. At the time we were told ‘no issues with the permit’ yet that turned out to be false.
Ideas - why would the company be duty bound to report the fact the ESIA might be dependent on all works being completed? Yes it would be ‘nice’ to know that information but I don’t believe the company are compelled to report that.
FWIW - I think the issue of keeping investors up to date has been handled poorly by the company. Conversely though I don’t believe GC has held back information which needs to be reported. That would just be silly
Apologies for typos below - mobile phone autocorrect!
I think it follows the same way, that if the company has been told that the ESIA depended on all worlds being completed, then it would be duty bound (and want) to tell us, as it would clear the uncertainty. It seems inconceivable that full completion would be a requirement and the government not tell them.
For that reason, for me, 1) a deal, or 2) the company has no idea are the two most plausible.
Like Dshox, I'm happy to wait, on a personal basis, and I am concerned objectively as to the impact on valuation and liquidity if 30 Sept were to pass in silence as to the cause (i.e. ‘were remain confident’ seems insufficient after even the Midas column journalist having spoken to Graham understood it as being expected any day / H1 on that Vox podcast). Delay is okay (if finance is managed) but needs accompanying explanation to be fully okay.
Early EML was renowned for news flow and transparency and I’m sure it would be now if matters were within its control.
I think you’re spot in CBax. Indeed surely the company would have been duty bound to report such a thing. This still might happen but until that time I’m still awaiting and OCP tie up, ESIA and funding.
If the ESIA was NOT going to come would we have heard about it by now ?