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.
Does anyone think there may be the possibility of a full asset sale (as per Ian's recent post) plus a royalty scheme where the new owner pay us an annual dividend based on the future Kola mine output? That would explain having a shell company in 'Eurasia' for the dividends.
GLA.
Just a few worn out pick axes will be left IMO
GLA
At last. A calm and considered analysis. It's not complicated.
That's my take on it too Ian. All the assets.
I posted this up earlier and will just add a bit:-
"I see there is still some ambiguity about this paragraph that the company put out yesterday :-
"The Company has now received several proposals including a proposal from a credible party for the potential acquisition of substantially ALL of the Company's assets"
What are 'SUBSTANTIONALY ALL THE COMPANY'S ASSETS'? for those that don't know, or refuse to believe, let me try and explain!
Is there any case law relating to definitions of or discussions on ‘substantially all’ in relation to a company’s assets?
"Most English law practitioners take the view that this phrase means everything other than immaterial or de minimis assets which are so residual as to be irrelevant to the conduct of the company's business or undertaking, and the “substantially all” language is intended to ensure that the operative provisions apply even if for some reason a disposal fails to catch every single asset of a company or disposing entity."
Please review the above and digest it!
The above means that the company is virtually SOLD!
It will have to be voted on by us SHAREHOLDERS, and if they are stupid and don't vote it through, it will not happen!
That is the only 'fly in the ointment' that the company can't control, is how investors vote!
They have just done an experiment, and most voted, IN FAVOUR, with the chairman!
You can continue to think the company may continue in some form, BUT, that is clearly, NOT their intention!"
What I'm saying is the acreage of various mines and joint ventures 'ARE WANTED' by the prospective purchaser!
What the prospective purchaser may not want are the UK offices and furnishings, some earth moving equipment, as they may have their own?
So, if we all vote it through and the company sell's its assets , the cash raised from the asset's sale goes into the company coffers, as the company still exists at that point with its offices up for sale with the local estate agent and not fully wound up!
What would you call a payment upfront to SHAREHOLDERS from the company that still exists in NAME with offices that are still up for sale?
You can ONLY call it a 'SIGNIFICANT DIVIDEND' I would have thought!
To be followed by a final payment sometime later on when the company is finally wound up!
Only my way of thinking!
Good luck everyone.
Best post I've read in 36 hours. Thanks Ian.
Very well said, Admiral.
Have shared this on the Telegram board which I occasionally frequent as it is so concise.
GLA.
"Does this mean that the buyer doesn't want Dimitry's comfy old chair?"
Haha, and Keith's old fax machine! :-)
Thanks Ian, great post.
You raise an interesting point there Ian. Namely that the recent vote was a test of investor sentiment/ loyalty.
Good morning Ian, glad your breakfast went well.
Does this mean that the buyer doesn't want Dimitry's comfy old chair?
Admiral
That clers things up.
Once again - well said.
Have a fe Rhums to that
Cheers
JT and SL
Morning all,
The rain held off and another lovely breakfast was consumed with copious coffee!
I see there is still some ambiguity about this paragraph that the company put out yesterday :-
"The Company has now received several proposals including a proposal from a credible party for the potential acquisition of substantially ALL of the Company's assets"
What are 'SUBSTANTIONALY ALL THE COMPANY'S ASSETS'? for those that don't know, or refuse to believe, let me try and explain!
Is there any case law relating to definitions of or discussions on ‘substantially all’ in relation to a company’s assets?
"Most English law practitioners take the view that this phrase means everything other than immaterial or de minimis assets which are so residual as to be irrelevant to the conduct of the company's business or undertaking, and the “substantially all” language is intended to ensure that the operative provisions apply even if for some reason a disposal fails to catch every single asset of a company or disposing entity."
Please review the above and digest it!
The above means that the company is virtually SOLD!
It will have to be voted on by us SHAREHOLDERS, and if they are stupid and don't vote it through, it will not happen!
That is the only 'fly in the ointment' that the company can't control, is how investors vote!
They have just done an experiment, and most voted, IN FAVOR, with the chairman!
You can continue to think the company may continue in some form, BUT, that is clearly, NOT their intention!
Enjoy the rest of the day, we longer-term holders are fully relaxed with our feet up awaiting the next major RNS!
Not much longer to go, in my view :-)
Good luck everyone...