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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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 hope that was not an intentional trick question :)
The company is controlled by SF buddy
The company seems to want to fight off Seafox, so surely they're going to try and dilute Seafox's share holding as part of the debt restructure aren't they?
The comforting factor to an extent is that Mazoui and Horizon Energy, who have aligned with SF currently, rejected the 10p bid. But again, not sure what they agreements are struck behind the scenes.
You have a good week too!
Yes of course read it, IMO the hostile was because of the dire terms, the timing et al.
I will reiterate what you have said in full "Listen, I am on your side, and I am hoping that I am proven wrong. I just don't have enough comfort in this board that they will do right by the minority shareholders. I will change my stance based on the outcome of the bank discussions."
If they roll over again I will be questioning my holding and very likely reduce in some manner before the end of the month.
We are relying on the whites of their eyes... that's the risk!
Have a good week mate.
Of course I have read it. They don't really make any solid arguments. though Agree that Tim getting paid when he was fired was a sour deal. Yet the improvements on cost side have been delivered under the watch of the old board. The new contracts they announced recently, I bet that the tenders were submitted before this new board came in. At the time they negotiated the bank deal, things were super uncertain, that it was perhaps the best deal they could get. They weren't given the time to do a capital increase, and got replaced, because clearly SF did not want to participate in a rights issue (for reasons unknown, but will certainly unfold in due course). The old board was also cooperating with Zakher Marine to save on costs (as far as we know), and ZM is being sold to Adnoc currently (as per November news)
Have you read the hostile offer letter?
Listen, I am on your side, and I am hoping that I am proven wrong. I just don't have enough comfort in this board that they will do right by the minority shareholders. I will change my stance based on the outcome of the bank discussions.
It really does strike that they are genuine...
But again... they time may come, if a deal doesn't land that that will go out of the window... still seems a 10p offer could be best option, provided they have the capital to cover it etc...
I agree on your predicted upside... with the debt out of the way the results are very very strong and 30p should be the minimum ball park figure.
Gap closes at 33p.
RESPONSE TO STATEMENT BY GULF MARINE SERVICES PLC
Seafox, the largest shareholder in GMS, notes the 8th October 2020 announcement by the board of GMS. It is our opinion that the statement is both misleading and consistent with a board that is acting in an alarming manner. The announcement comes from board members that in our opinion lost legitimacy since 30th June 2020 when the majority of shareholders voted down most of the resolutions put for approval at the GMS AGM, including voting against the remuneration of certain board members and the appointment of two of the current GMS board members that were voted down yet re-instated within 1 hour from the conclusion of the AGM. We are making this announcement to further inform the market of the background as to the Seafox GMS Directors resignations and the suggested GMS board changes.
Seafox believe that the suggested capital increase needed full shareholder support through consultation and potential underwriting/commitment as the Company is trying to raise significant capital in relation to its current market capitalisation. This as far as we are aware did not happen. There is no aborted process it is only a board that is currently seeking to limit its own personal liability. Such an important bank deal should have been put forward to a shareholder’s vote given the need for warrants or capital which is a shareholder matter. The capital raise process should have started a long time ago and not subject the Company to such a major risk by limiting the capital increase to a tight window. The capital increase process was stopped by a board meeting not attended by Mr Heikal and Mr Halbouny as they were not invited. In this context it is important to note that neither Mr Heikal nor Mr Halbouny voted against any capital increase process. Seafox is not aware of any real effort to raise capital, including without limitation, wall crossing shareholders or new investors. The company did not provide any detail in that respect.
Seafox believe that the current board members do not understand the basic concept of a shareholding company, let alone a listed UK PLC, namely that the company has shareholders! Shareholders who have invested capital, time and effort. Shareholders that voted down multiple resolutions and as far as we are concerned, we will protect the best interest of the company, its shareholders and all stakeholders.
Seafox suggested independent board members that have no affiliation whatsoever with Seafox, we are trying to bring best in class expertise, independence and proper governance to the board in the context of a company that predominantly operates in the Arab world and listed in the UK.
Seafox is avoiding being dragged into continuously having to respond to bewildering statements.
Have you read the documents / statement put out by Seafox ?
It doesn't look like they are acting in selfish ways at all and I don't think they would make public statements put out on their websites that proved to be lies.
The do strike as very genuine... and really only acted to take control as they saw the deals that Tim put in place as for want of a better word. Cr *p.
My problem is that a bidder who tried to acquire the company on the cheap is in FULL control of the board! Hence, I am expecting negative surprises on the bank discussion, with an outcome that is likely to favour SF (at the expense of minority), confirming my current thesis that the board is 'owned' by SF. If that is not the case, this is worth 5-7x current prices in my view, on a conservative scenario
The companies who agreed to the board changes last year to take it over the threshold aren't all connected to Seafox this and seafox's comments regarding in the interests of all shareholders have to be seen as a positive... clearly these companies see that Seafox are, at least in part acting in good faith... Aberforth Partners LLP were clearly slicing a very small porition of their position as the selling has entirely dried up, so again they and all the big shareholders don't see a stitch up taking place here ...
I guess the problem is if there becomes a time that the banks don't agree to revised terms and Seafox act in a way to protect their own interests at the expense of everyone else. But they cannot buy us out for less than 10p per share without a EGM and no one will agree to an EGM that will stitch them over, so it would only ever be in the interests of Seafox.
Don't think they are on for that either currently... but as said... if it keeps rolling over there will become a point that an agreement looks unlikely and we have to start factoring in the likelihood of a default (still seems unlikely).
It would, still be in the interest of Seafox to buy out all the shares @ 10p and clear the debt (over default) they would essentially be buying the 60p NAV for 10p (as Nav takes debt into account). With a strong order book and alredy opperating the jurisdiction and market.
I would like to se an agreement before the end of February otherwise I will personally be questioning my position here and whether i sell out entirely or de-risk.
I agree they can't extend forever, and I would like to think that GMS defaulting is bad for all shareholders, including SF. What if defaulting on the debt is not negative for SF? I am just wary of what happened with previous UAE based companies listed in London.....the common factor was the majority or controlling shareholder and lousy corporate governance.
ADCB is the lead bank on the deal, judging from Companies House documents, and they are coming off a rough year with NMC (making the bank the other common factor with NMC).
4corners - they aren't going to roll over the deadline forever … there will become a point where if they cannot agree this will become a lot riskier.
Clearly the demands and GMS are trying to achieve is not easy to agree on... which is good from our point of view as it is clearly in our favour... there will become a point tho when it looks unlikely to be achieved and GMS will end up defaulting as the banks will pull the plug.
14 trading days left to meet n agreement.. still every chance of happening.
Yes, I meant the odds of them agreeing to something this month seem low. Obviously I am happy if they do agree on something this month and I am proven wrong.
I’m thinking deal before Feb month end
4C - are you saying odds on another extension?
lol- hi HH. You in here too? Could be a gusher soon.
Likely we are looking at couple of months as they drag this one out. SF probably wants to buy some time to crater the share price and make a bid again at 10p (or even lower, who knows). Part of the "frustrate minority shareholders" playbook
Are you engaged then bigsmoke?
Not nessacerily accumulating mate but there are enough orders on the book and its low enough volume for it not to drop back... unless someone suddenly runs for the exit but imo if they were on for that they would have done it by now rather than rolling over into 2 extensions.
Cam, you reckon someone is accumulating?
Disagree unless there is suddenly a huge flurry of selling we won't be going back to 5p... the volume is to low... more likely to get buying here on in the closer we get to a result & the bid is stacked to 5.9p
Totally agreed....or unless therr is a bid
Until the funding is sorted this is going nowhere,
bit of support around 6.30ish, breaks that it`s
down to 5 again.
Bigsmoke - ig