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.
Hang on
look at the RNS from October 14th 2019.
The original transaction was in October 2016 (and notified as such).
The shares were used as collateral for a loan and hedges put in place.
Raise valid points about the nature of the business and its current prospects (they are concerning enough).
It helps nobody coming out with wild rantings about legitimate transactions.
Tedmak,
Call it whatever you want, it is an indirect insider trading by Whitaker and JP Morgan. Those put options were big and bold, they had a strong conviction. I think intu has been inflating it’s revenue when compared with HMSO and BLND.
Whoever granted the put to Peel would almost inevitably have hedged their position and just taken a turn in the middle - ie they would have sold short to cover themselves. Although Peel didn't sell any shares short, the effect of this transaction is just the same. No doubt the lender will have insisted on it so it may not reflect a lack of confidence in the business but it doesn't look good. I've been weighing a buy here but might sit tight until the rights issue is announced assuming it happens to see whether small investors are shafted or get a chance to buy in.
H-hi
He secured a loan with Intu shares.
He has now repaid the loan.
The shares held as security have been released back to him.
The put options have not been exercised but settled with cash payment.
No shares have changed hands, he still has his original share holding.
Nature of the transaction
Settlement of the final 11 tranches of the derivative financing arrangement notified on 12 October 2016, being the automatic cash settlement of such tranches of put options granted to Peel Chapel No.4 Limited.
No shares in the issuer are being transferred by the Peel Group as a result of such settlements
Hang on, H-Hi, Tedmak is saying that the lender took out the Put Options to protect the capital value of the collateral he lent against. That would make sense because all the RNS's that were full of Put Options were declared by JP Morgan (and possibly other banks. I don't recall).
Which suggests that the lenders made a killing. Their loans were repaid at 100% and the Put Options made them a bonus of at least another 50% of the capital advanced. Now that's banking!
As a large shareholder, you don’t do that......you can pledge the shares but those put options are definitely wrong. Just like Intu’s convenants.......once you use your shares to get a loan.....banks will agree on a minimum low point whereby repayment may be demanded ASAP. Whitaker has shorted intu indirectly.
I assume that the lender took out the out options to maintain the value of the collateral. As the whole transaction was linked to such a large shareholder, would assume it would need declaration.
pseudonym,
thanks... i get the loan bit..not sure i get the derivative settling, in detail, though....
Peel Holdings pledged some of their Intu shares as security for a loan.
The loan has now been fully repaid and the shares have been released back to Peel Holdings.
The puts were all part of this derivative financing arrangement and have now been settled.
Peel Holdings now has all it`s shares released back and is free to take part in the upcoming rights issue.
Guys,
Has Whittaker excercised the Put Options at 255p on 53m shares ?..and used the money to pay back the loans on Peel1,2,3 ?
Sorry, Iam just trying to get to grips of what has actually been notified
Why pay for huge put options when you are a top director and board member? The put options are huge, the RNS clearly shows them............it’s a clear signal to shorters. A REIT’s share is backed by its property which yields something so why pay huge put options? I understand a situation like beyond meat, where the mcap is greater than the whole industry.
H-hi, With respect, Put Options merely protect the sale price of a shareholder's stock. They're nothing do with selling stock that you don't own, in the hope of buying it back later at a cheaper price.
They're also quite expensive. While there have been substantial option trades in the past nine months, I haven't seen any RNS that link those disposals to Mr. Whittaker, or one of his connected companies. Have you?
So what about the put options?
Where are you taking this information (JW shorting intu shares) from? He is not listed in short positions register.
Whitaker has made huge money shorting his own stock.......haha! Stay away and don’t buy.