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.
The outcome for PI's is the same: Pre pack administration = you get nothing. Administration = you get nothing. Liquidation = you get nothing.
CC
Maybe the Lenders have calculated with the BoD what percentage of shares they need to carry the vote.
I still think they should confirm the 7.5% deal, rather than chance the 5% deal - still a risk of dissenting PI's voting against it
There is little or no difference in these definitions, it is just the way they are worded.
A pre-pack sale is agreed well beforehand. The administrator is appointed by the court to execute the agreed sale / administration.
To me there seems to be different views on prevpack admin. Real business rescue.co.uk say it allows a company to sell all or some of its assetts to a buyer before appointing an administrator to facilitate the sale.
Company rescue .co.uk say pre pack administration allows a company to sell its assetts before appointing an administrator.
Which of the above is accurate? Sell after administration or sell before and then once assets are sold place the Plc company into administration.
My guess is Enyo Law will know the answer.
It is expected that admission will become effective on 13 March 2019."
I'm not sure. It says shares will be issued from time to time. I'm not clear if admission means admission of the block listing facility.
However, your point is valid. Why would the lenders not want to convert the warrants so they can vote the shares. The bigger puzzle is that they aren't converting all of them. (suggesting not all the banks are in alignment?)
https://news.sky.com/story/top-interserve-shareholder-warns-on-asset-sales-11663029
CC - does the following not mean that the new shares will be issued tomorrow enabling the Lenders to vote them on Friday?
"When issued, these new ordinary shares will rank pari passu in all aspects with all existing ordinary shares in the Company.
It is expected that admission will become effective on 13 March 2019."
The 13.6m votes aren't yet votes. The shares have not yet been issued. Only the ability to issue them.
Whether the warrants are going to be taken up this week remains to be seen or whether IRV are just putting everything straight before the vote is unknown.
Response to media reports re Deleveraging Plan
Mon, 11th Mar 2019 17:27
RNS Number : 5113S
Interserve PLC
11 March 2019
11 March 2019
RESPONSE TO MEDIA REPORTS REGARDING DELEVERAGING PLAN
The Interserve Board notes today's Sky News article and confirms that it has been in discussions with Coltrane and its lenders which have sought to establish the basis on which Coltrane would support the company's restructuring proposal.
Although the Board is seeking to improve the position of all shareholders, there is no certainty that it will be able to do so in the very limited time available.
I have re-posted my previous post below for ease....
Do the new £13.6m votes alter the possible voting thus...
Against the deal 31%
For the deal approx 32% (assumptions made on how Employees & Insiders will vote).
????
If so a 7.5% deal would definitely carry the vote imo.
.................................................................................
Coltrane & Farringdon between them own 34% of Interserve.
They have stated they will vote against the proposed deal and "burn their equity".
I have had a further look and think Bill tucker was correct in that the Lenders own about 10%. Aberdeen Standard Investments own 5%. I can't find any hard data, but believe Employees and Insiders own about 10%.
So it looks like...
Against the deal 34%
For the deal approx 25%
This leaves about 40% of shares with PIs and IIs - does anyone know the split?
I would estimate that to pass the deal, the company will need above 75% of all shareholders to vote.
This is an important vote, but over 75% seems high.
Also based on comments by some existing shareholders posting on these sites, it does not appear that all existing shareholders are prepared to back the deal.
It will be interesting to see if anything changes moving towards Fridays vote.....but a the moment I would have to say that sadly Administration is looking a very strong possibility now.
Well I see the announcement of new shares has been made by Andy McDonald Company Secretary of Interserve Plc.
Who then is the person who wrote to shareholders on the 26th February 2019. My letter was from John McDonald. Could it be John McDonnell Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer or someone else pretending to be the Company Secretary of IRV.
Seriously though is the letter calling for the General Meeting on the 26th March 2019 valid? Or by then perhaps it won’t matter anyway? How can you spend £76 million on advisers and get the name wrong at such a critical time when private investors are going to get wiped out? The whole thing needs investigating by the FCA and it’s individual directors that have misled investors imo.
it's a business model folks. If you trade through one of the larger "more professional brokers" who charge you £10-12 a trade they don't charge for voting or for example letters of representation for attending AGM's.
If you trade through a smaller broker charging £5 a trade they have to make the difference up somewhere else. Voting fees, fees for attending AGM's, even fees I've heard for taking part in open offers and rights issues, little to no interest on your un-invested capital.
Approx 8% of shares (of the new total) for Lenders?
Block Listing Application
Tue, 12th Mar 2019 08:30
RNS Number : 5770S
Interserve PLC
12 March 2019
12 March 2019
Interserve Plc
Block Listing Application
Interserve plc (the "Company") provides notification that a block listing application has been made for a total of 13,634,871 new ordinary shares of 0.1 pence each in the capital of the Company to be admitted to the Official List and to trading on the London Stock Exchange's main market for listed securities.
The new ordinary shares will be issued from time to time to satisfy the exercise of outstanding warrants issued by the Company pursuant to a warrant instrument executed on 27 April 2018.
When issued, these new ordinary shares will rank pari passu in all aspects with all existing ordinary shares in the Company.
It is expected that admission will become effective on 13 March 2019.
Andy McDonald
Company Secretary
12 March 2019
Toplink,
I agree with you, there should be no charge for voting.
I think most existing shareholders would be prepared to wait years now to recover as much as their losses as possible. The 7.5% deal in my view, would give some opportunity of long term recovery to existing holders.
GL
What is perhaps the greatest unfairness in this sorry saga is the fact that many shareholders holding their shares by way of nominee accounts are required to pay either a £25 fee (a figure I have seen quoted on this board) in order to vote one way or the other, or to be effectively disenfranchised and left with no say. I would far rather wait perhaps for years for the share price to rise and dividends to again be paid than lose my investment.
People are on here posting their views about Interserve. And that is what they are - views.
You are on here posting your views on people posting their views .......and you are amused!
Take a moment step back and take a good look at yourself. If you think this worthwhile , please do continue.
I love the way that people talk with such absolute matter-of-factness about how people that they have never even met will react to something. - 5% ? Unfair and Coltrane will never accept it. 7.5% ? - absolutely reasonable and will get voted through no problem.
None (absolutely none) of you have the first clue what is going to happen. There is no insight whatsoever from any of you. Pure speculation, based on a lack of real knowledge and bluff. It’s really quite amusing to watch unfold
Do continue please.....
Max2mentor
I really struggled with 5%, but to answer your question - YES I would vote for a 7.5% deal.
You can look back and say Interserve could have done this or that differently and I would not disagree.
But in ther current position 7.5% for existing shareholders is by no means good, but it is probably reasonable and importantly the very best deal they will get.
So if existing shareholders are left with 7.5%, I say take the deal - vote it through.
At last the BoD are putting themselves on the right side of the deal and the right side of normal shareholders.
By trying to get Lenders to move to a 7.5% deal, they will now receive the much needed support of Private Investors in my view.
Also if they get the 7.5% deal through and Coltrane turn it down, I believe sentiment will change towards Coltrane. Up until now it has appeared that the Lenders were being unreasonable, but at 7.5% (for existing shareholders) they are finally being fair.
If the BoD can get this through and avoid administration then they will have done a good job imo.
And despite all the negative comments they have received and probably will still receive, in reality they will have achieved a far better deal than the vast majority of people will have ever expected.
I will no doubt be criticised for this, but I say well done to the Board for trying - a lot of Directors would just have dug their heals in and defended their position. The BoD appear to be putting Interserve and existing shareholders (many of whom are their own Employees) ahead of their own ego''s. This deserves respect.
Let's hope the Lenders can agree to this to. If Coltrane then say no, they will isolate themselves. I see Farringdon as a more moderate objector to the 5% deal and would be very surprised if they reject a 7.5% offer.
The 7.5% deal would pass the vote on Friday and a consensual deleveraging would be achieved.
feileb
"Coltrane should now understand its the absolute best they are going to get, and will vote it through."
... would you ?
Thank you kenj for clarifying. As I have lost most of my investment here already from the SP that I first invested I think I’ll let it run it’s course. GLA.
How many of you unfortunately have a SIPS account?
I’m one and thought it would be a pension top up?
Gutted how employees have been treated through this!
Every job I’ve worked on has made a profit but some idiot let other parts of the business lose money, they knew and should be held accountable?!?
I don’t think it is, company needs new equity this week to stay afloat. I suppose it’s down to the discretion of the lenders.
Maybe not, but the GM on Friday is adjournable.