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.
Fortune oil is not a good comparison, it irrelevant here, in case you didn't know, tier 1 copper /gold assets are very much sought after.
He wont listen to you, he's like a dog with a bone.
Clearly it is A FACT that we are vulnerable to a take over/sale, everyone knows this and NM himself has said so MANY times, which he refuses to acknowledge.
Q, FFS! Read the Code!
From what you described Quady, Fortune oil was not subject to a hostile bid. So comparison fails.
addicknt, sorry on this occasion it's you that are wrong, I have seen this happen more than once. Not always in a good way.
The fortune oil story, is my most recent memory, I know others on here, were in that share.
Look into it. This happens.
Q, you're just like one of Johnson's famous whack-a-moles. Every argument you espouse is proven to be wrong and yet you immediately pop up with some other weird defence. Just accept the fact, you are totally and utterly wrong about what companies can do once they are defined as being in a bid situation.
This company is highly vulnerable to a bid and that is a simple statement of fact. And no matter how often you come up with your 'diverse book' stuff, it will not alter the fact of your errors.
Thank you Iceberg.
not yet in the hands of majors...
There is a reason for this, its what the majors do and it will be no different here.
Again their is a resolution to mitigate their rights essentially make them worthless in a big share issurence.
Fair point ToS1963, I think the pre-emptive rights expired with the standstill agreement, allowing BHP to buy in the open market. ( that would be nice, and raise the share price considerably, so probably not going to happen )
This has never been simple, and if someone wants us, then as addicknt says, let them take us over, but not cheap.
This is going up in value all the time, I have laid out this morning some defense strategies.
I think the takeover window has come and gone, and when we get the PFS and CFP, then surely, our route to production is almost certain.
Iceberg, Quady & ToS - thank you gives me something to think about rather than knee jerk reaction. Agreed good defensive ploy but could the majors not vote it down (rhetorical question)
Aren’t we all assuming here that BHP, Et al have no preemption rights? I’d be very surprised if that were the case.
3. Existing Shareholders and Pre-emptive Rights to New Shares
The next step is to check that the issue of the shares complies with any applicable pre-emption rights. These require new shares to be offered to existing shareholders first, in proportion to the number of shares they already hold.
These rights of first refusal over issues of new shares are designed to protect shareholders by allowing them to have the chance of preventing the dilution of their shareholding so long as they have sufficient funds available to subscribe for the new shares.
The resolutions call for up to £17m shares to be issued at a nominal value.
The nominal value is 1p so the actual amount of shares in is 1.7bn
Even in section a, I believe it mentioned £7m at nominal amount so 700m shares.
There won't use this imo, but he worth getting the agreement.
're takeover law generally and share issues, the generally law refers to a frustration of the hostile bid by issuing the shares via a corporate action..
The argument would be that by seeking permission now and then entering into open discussion as a precaution that the purpose of the corporate action is not to frustrate the bid, but to raise money for ?production and long lead items. You could also issue none voting shares, or shares that don't have a voting abi!it for say 6 months. Thereby not affecting the bid per se, but would make any bid less acceptable to the bidder.
Personally I still think an agreement with BHP has been made, but....
Good morning RogueNation, may I suggest it's a really good idea to back this, as it stops us being taken out cheap.
I bet you that the majority of shareholders will back this motion, for that very reason.
Only reason not to back it, is if you want a cheap offer.
Morning iceberg (0806), not sure I understand how one of the resolutions to be voted on is giving BoD the right to issue upto 1bln shares. My initial take was they can issue shares up to a financial value, (together with a cap on aggregate accumulation) if I’ve got that wrong I would not be inclined to back that particular resolution.
Nothing like a nice barbecue with Marie Rose sauce, got to be finished off with a nice wine of 1545, does help it go down in style one thinks, lol
Good morning schlemiel, it's simple.
I am in a minority, but I believe that the most likely path is production.
Enjoy life, and concentrate on the rest of your portfolio, and hopefully like my portfolio, your dividends are seeing signs of recovery, and can fund your lifestyle.
If I am wrong, then you get a payday sooner.
But the outlook is the same, enjoy life.
A quick explanation on options: We currently have 2.072 billion shares in issue.
Options are awarded to directors, should they meet certain milestones, resulting in increased value for shareholders ( I don't really like this type of reward, I would rather they invested their own money )
So when certain price points are reached, then more shares are issued, increasing the 2.072 figure, and diluting all shareholders marginally.
Should they fail to reach those targets by the expiry date of the options, then they are cancelled, and no dilution takes place, but then a new set of options with a different date is issued.
Are you being racist to plebs?
NH 16:41 - 'I love a DIY Marie rose sauce ketchup and mayonnaise.'
What's the inference mate? cheers
I don't understand options that well and neither do I understand what we can surmise when options are allowed to expire or reallocated.
I want to see the future but the present evidence doesn't allow for it
Good morning bm3121uk, I believe we have over 100 million shares as options.
However you are correct they are at different prices, and 60 pence are the memorable ones.
But if we get a bid at say a pound, and the price rises to a pound, then those options can be exercised, and we go from 2.072 billion shares to 2.2 billion shares. ( those figures are from memory, so I could be a bit out )
All the best.
A topic that has not been mentioned for quite a while is the issuance of the remaining 60p options due in Dec., 21. Roughly 50 million of the 40 and 60p options expired a couple of months ago. NM has been allocated 35million of those, with several other board and senior management allocated a million or so each. Nothing has gone out to indicate the expiry of these options. Also, BHP is sitting on quite a few million 37p options (tens of millions from memory) so there is already in place a significant dilution to the everyday and institutional holders should a takeover offer ever be put to the market. However, one would expect that none of 60p options will be exercised by Dec 21 should SOLG try and go it alone. My thoughts only.
The Valuestone issuance is an intriguing corporate development but I don't possess the insight or professional experience to work out exactly what Mather's intentions are.
He could have raised the paltry $5m from any party but chose a Canadian based private equity company financed by the Chinese State. Why the Chinese? Why not the Aussies (BHP or Newcrest)?
And why did he raise only $5m? It's a pitiful amount of capital to raise for a company of SOLG's size. What's the purpose of raising such a small amount? Is he signalling future developments
Feck me, it's doing my bonce in. I'm searching for answers and I can't find one, not one and that 's frazzling my tiny brain
Hi rcgl2, I think your summing up is correct, and yes the scenario you paint would be interesting.
But it does two things in reality.
First: I think the actions the company are taking makes a bid almost impossible at this stage, and so it won't happen.
Second: If I am wrong, and using your scenario, and say BHP offer 1 pound a share, and the company issues 500 million shares.
Then the share price still goes up, just with the dilutive effect, share price may only reach 80 pence.
So it will be an exit point and defended at the same time.
Lastly, what makes anyone thing that the other stakeholders would take a 1 pound bid. Some investors are looking at this from personal gain.
Someone please tell me why NCM and others, would sell their stake for 1 pound a share, when for no extra investment, they get a percentage of Alpala, and every other project we bring to fruition. ( that wouldn't make sense to me )
All the best.
Feel like this discussion is conflating two different scenarios. In the normal course of things, agreed the company can issue and allot shares to new holders which would dilute down the major shareholders. As iceberg says the resolutions give authority to issue new shares and disapply pre-emption rights. I agree with you here Quady, it could be used to keep parties at bay.
But I think in the context of a formal offer being made or about to be made, the takeover code would apply and company can't just frustrate it with share issuance.
Imagine if BHP offered £1 a share and you were keen to accept. Then NM says surprise, we've just issued 500m shares to a few other institutional holders so not only is the £1 a share off the table without you all having a chance to vote on it, but your existing shares are now significantly diluted. But don't worry, you're still on track for jam tomorrow.