Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full 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.
and the first in line are the administrators themselves and boy do they charge
15lives
Administration is an insolvency event, but is different to a liquidation. The administrator is appointed by the court and operates to strict rules to look after the interests of creditors. Shareholders only receive a distribution once all other creditors are paid in full and the administrators fees, which in this case will be several hundreds of thousands are paid first. In addition most contracts with the business will have an insolvency clause which allows them to terminate the contract if they wish, and administration is an insolvency event. I have bought several businesses out of insolvency and in every case there has been a shortfall to ordinary creditors who receive a few pence in the pound, and nothing for the shareholders. In theory shareholders can get something but in practice it is very rare.
"All of these people we shall owe money to though aren't or can't they be paid off out of what Is already left so that if we do get a no vote and AA pull out then we're left owing no one."
Except the Admin, could sell the assets to safisfy the creditors and those buying them (maybe AAL) could get them at an even cheaper price. It's a fire sale at that point...
"What I'm trying to think through is a process whereby we can even at this stage fight fir an outcome better than this AA offer."
You have rights under the Companies Act, the issue you have is expressing them as minority shareholders and the big calculation you need make in terms of the commercial outcome of expressing them.
Lets say you rejected the offer, no other offer is forthcoming. That could reduce your capital even further. If that's what you want fair enough. It's your money.
For what it's worth, if I was convinced there had been irregular illegal activity ( I dont, just commercial risk), then I'd join the ShareSoc (potential) campaign, but I'd recognise that could go on for years without achieving anything.
If you want certainty I'd sell, but you could lose out or at least retain some capita. There's not guarantees with speculative stocks like this, even less when it's at the end of the cash runway.
ps "Apologies if I'm coming across dogmatic." I didn't. I'm interested in Corporate Governance, spend time promoting private share ownership and find high alpha stock that catch the imagination of private investors fascinating.
I
Be careful with that boiler 15 - you dont want to become 14Lives :-)
Calamari
All of these people we shall owe money to though aren't or can't they be paid off out of what Is already left so that if we do get a no vote and AA pull out then we're left owing no one. Our project is then mothballed and that would surely throw our plight into the political arena
I must get on with this boiler now lol.
Franalex
I have read up on administration. That's where I read administration does not necessarily lead to insolvency. The two are different.
Devonplay
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm merely putting the questions out there for answers I'm uncertain of and which as a shareholder I'm wondering about. As I said, I'm certainly no expert. What I'm trying to think through is a process whereby we can even at this stage fight fir an outcome better than this AA offer.
Apologies if I'm coming across dogmatic.
Fantastic hopefully ShareSoc campaign will get a mention .i think the strategic review was simply buying them time to finalise the AAL deal - no intention of looking elsewhere it was a done deal looking after the board
"If we run out of money, lay everyone off and padlock the gates because we have no more money coming in then who ate pur creditors?
Who are the administrators looking to pay off?"
Suppliers, settle termination contracts/agreemeent, employess and HMRC.
What's left then? If an operating business is only worth 3p per share, what would a hole in the ground be worth?
Are you suggesting once they stop spending money on everything else they'll keep spending money on listing and all the costs that implies?
They'd also most likely de-list.
The business (read hole in the ground) could sit there for decades, that's why the II will likely crystaize their positions by voting YES, take their capital and move on.
15lives. Suggest you read up on insolvency (administration is an insolvency event) and distribution priority. Shareholders are at the end of the queue. It is almost certain they will get nothing if Siri go into administration, they act for the creditors not shareholders.
Who are our creditors that should have read lol.
Sorry. Rushing my replies whilst installing a boiler.
Well boys do talk
Devonplay
If we run out of money, lay everyone off and padlock the gates because we have no more money coming in then who ate pur creditors?
Who are the administrators looking to pay off?
Hi FFC
I'm well thanks.
Be glad when all of this is sorted.
Ruthless vast art ?
Don’t say that lives I’m sure he’ll take it as a compliment
Hope you’re well ???
Ffc
Franalex
Administrators main priority when they take over the running of a company is to find a way to keep that company solvent. Ipso Facto that is in the best interests of the shareholders during that period.
Fred you have been a passionate supporter here so we are on the same page
No consolation but I feel your pain
It hurts but I guess we’ll get over it
Neal
Hi @15lives
If the company goes into Administration there's a bias to accepting a deal that's offering continuity. That I think is a fair assumption.
In this case we know the likely candidate is already in play. They may ask for futher bids. That's why there's often a premuim offered by acquirers pre-admin. It gives them an amount of certaintity. It also offer the possibility they get it for less.
It's not correct to say you go to the "front of the list", protecting creditors will be the main focus. You remain "in play", until there is a solution offered, but you are also likely to be "locked in". I would be surprised if they didn't suspend trading of ordinary shares.
Restructuring and continuity is exactly the point of Administration. It's not designed to protect sharesholders, but creditors and offer the business the chance of carrying on. That doesn't offer a guarantee to shareholder, but it is intented to offer a route forward for creditors.
WOW calamari it seems your bone is bigger than minn !!!!
You may manage to convince others but for me it’s staring me in the face so good luck in your endeavours
Ffc
Calamari
You can still be a ruthless bastard when it comes to the decision making whilst at the same time recognising the need to keep your shareholders informed.
CF & BOD have gone into complete radio silence. In stark contrast to the last years. I still think they owe it to their SH, a lot of whom are unique in terms of investors to give them as much information as they possibly can - it’s not like the company didn’t know the profile of their SH some of whom have been their since before planning. Only very recently they were telling SH who phoned IR that the SR was ongoing. We were in the middle of a SR - who was AAL best for - CF & BOD or SH’s or the company? Without an explanation what are investors meant to think? Trust has gone for many. It goes without saying it’s important to ensure the success of the mine but AAL will need the support of the local area that Sirius have spent years and money building up. Maybe it’s something that those who haven’t been LT SH’s and followed all the company updates/investor presentation won’t understand. I’m relieved I’m not local to have that constant reminder of what might have been as a LT SH - I’m not sure some will ever get over it. The fact that so many SH’s feel as they do is reason enough to keep the pressure on the Company to be more transparent and thank goodness ShareSoc are addressing this.
Sadly Minman it is beginning to look like we are in the minority as to its importance I to am just starting to understand what means more here
No matter I shall vote no unless it looks like I have no other option.
Good luck to you
Neal
Calamari - are you suggesting the BOD should withhold information that could “materially effect” the share price of a company?
Whether that effect is the the share price rising, falling or doing nothing Is irrelevant in my opinion.
If any should hang their heads in shame it is the media
___
No, it is the mendacious BOD of Sirius Minerals led by Chris Fraser who are fully responsible for that mess.
KOH
Shareholders will get nothing in an administration. They are at the back of the queue behind secured debt, creditors etc. Debenhams, Interserve, Thomas Cook, etc all went into administration and in each total shareholder wipeout. Administrators act for creditors not shareholders.
Devonplay
If we fall into administration then surely we go to the front of the list. Administrators remove the power of the BOD and seek a continuation of the business for its shareholders. Those owed money by us if we enter administration don't get paid whilst attempted restructuring is undertaken. Only if we then go into insolvency do we go to the back of the list.
Those saying we appoint the BOD to undertake decisions on our behalf are exactly right. However, these are exceptional circumstances and in light of that I would think more information on this rejected consortium would show a bit of empathy. I'm not sure from a legal perspective though how much could be revealed.
For what it's worth I think Fraser is still fighting behind the scenes to raise the money. He's displayed in the past his ruthless side when at the last minute dropping those he was in discussions with for the shaft sinking contract in favour of another. I don't care what his legal obligations are now that he has backed AA offer. He's a ruthless bastard when it comes to business and in my opinion he still wants us to be independent.