George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. 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.
08-10-2020
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
fiance decisions
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
If you have Bloomberg and the right market access you can see the depth and breadth, obviously not dark markets.
Cam - what you using for the DMA order book? Thanks.
to see we held the rise. come on. 12p at least.
Bid 330k down to 6p
Ask 120k up to 8p
If you look at the DMA order book you will see what I mean... the bid is stacked and constantly getting a higher bid with bigger orders.. the ask is drying up.
Price action is as important as fundamentals as it is the first signal of what the market anticipates, even before the chart.
A few more pi's get their head around the story here and the likelihood of positive developments then it'll rise to 9p before news.
Well.....the demand dried up as well which is why it fell, and there is no sustained demand unless things are clear
4Corners
If supply dries up.. the price rises... price fell back on Friday because the supply increased. Stocks do rise if undervalued, this could easily go to 9/10p before news lands especially for anyone who has done their homework.