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.
I don't know who Simon is, John.
I was referring to Sidi Moktar.
So im guessing from that the institutions end up in profit and we get shafted?
I was going to say that any future placing would not be putting shares in the hands of ‘informed institutional investors’ but I realised I would be wrong. Of course it would! ‘Informed institutional investors’ would definitely take up a deeply discounted fund raise but they would forward sell sufficient shares to get all their money back and probably a profit margin before any of us knew a fund raise was even taking place. (This happens all the time with other companies).
Heidhoncho
I am not judging - I am saying it is a positive if they could achieve a placing - would indicate that a LE is likely as majority of the shares would go to informed institutional investors.
A liquidity event for a placee would be advance notification of a guaranteed allocation at a discounted sp, which they could forward sell.
And don’t insult everyone’s intelligence that such a situation is illegal/immoral, as it is common practice, and you know it.
Longwait - yes indeed. Simon is a reasonably large shareholder (2%)ish and so has a vested interest to make a sale work. That gives me comfort somewhat as he probably has nice connections as the ex CEO of Threadneedle and will get a sale over the line.
Yes but who would buy the shares! unless in the know about an LE.
I notice that the RNS mentions SM.
As you suggest jnewton, from an auditing perspective, this would be on the basis of reasonable expectation of a sale. i.e. there are no reasons to suggest a buyer/deal to continue couldn't be found.
The 6 month accounts aren't audited, but they are prepared on the same basis. I also found the line interesting:
'These conditions indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which, were it not for the expected funding due from the marketing process'
Perhaps BM signed a commitment to invest another 10k in some newly issued shares :)
Or if the company had assured them that a placing was to be made to raise the funds necessary for the following 12 moths, perhaps.
Nope I am not soundingoff. Another point on the Going concern, as an ex big 4 Accountant. From the perspective of the audit Partner who signed off these accounts, they would have had to have been confident in a sale in order for the accounts to have been prepared on a going concern basis. I.e. they would only have signed the accounts as a going concern if they were told/knew something more about a potential sale. the % chance of the sale would have had to have been "reasonably possible" (in accounting terms) - and the auditors will have some evidence on their audit file to back up their assumptions (e.g. a letter of intent from a buyer perhaps?). The audit partner will not risk his career by signing off the going concern without backup.
I once met an accountant. I wondered if that was SO too. Was too shy to ask though.
Jones/Neptunes- You're a rather creepy chap. What with this and your stalking of Crudehope.
I am an accountant. The impairment charge means that the auditors requested management to do an assessment of the fair value (sale value) of the asset. They will have used an expert from their pil and gas team. So the sale value, at 30 june 2019, is what the asset was written down to.