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.
Morning C7,
Must have taken an age to type that lot, and I particularly found the sixth para to be most interesting?
Lets hope they come to their senses and we get a full explanatory rns, detailing a plan b! any positives for a way forward or indeed a sincere apology and a resignation or two...
As senior directors of a Plc, this is the least they can do for their long suffering shareholders, imo
Morning Guys, Heid Honcho you posted................."".Additionally, the liquidator will perform a forensic review of the accounts, so were any dubious accounting practices, which may not necessarily be illegal/fraudulent as it would also encompass anything that was conducted that wasn’t in the shareholders best interests, then those practices, were there any, would be unearthed.
And that would carry a potential penalty of them being unable to secure future directorships for a period of between 2 and 15 years, and were the practices be identified that were not in the shareholders best interests that may open them up for criminal proceedings, were of course such practices to have been identified""
Absolutely correct, as have been many of your posts on this subject There is one thing you mentioned about ceasing trading, well if the Company don"t file any accountsthenbthey will have a periodbetweenb4-6 months to do so, and the n the company will be struk off by Companies House..
I saw Freddy post about Satu saving a life, and didn"t catch up on the BB after. I understand many posts were deleted, so am none the wiser now.
One thing to consider and perpetuated by Georges absence, is they knew they had lost the vote, decided not to attend, which I find incomprehensible, but something seems to be missing, and that may well be the BODs Plan B. Can"t possibly imagine what it is though but someone/bodies were picking up shares at .48 yesterday, they must be expecting something.
Heid you mention admimistrators/liquidators work for creditors not shareholders, well theycan"t have many creditors and only the FCA would work forshareholders,but there would be no chance of financial recompense for them., just a Prosecution against the Company Directors which would suit many. When I think of the RNSs issued and the ""six interested parties" to name just one, how hard would it be to prove the RNSs were misleading at best and were at all times timed to convince shareholders to take part in raisings based on what coud well be false information.
In the meantime I guess you have to wait to see what the BOD will come back with, can you only imagine??
Didn’t this same vote happened 3 years ago at >7p on the mother of all short squeezes but then they had another vote and the board screwed shareholders with another undervalued placing as soon as they could, after they had another vote, at pittance to let YA out of the bind instead of making them buy on market or close to market price. I knew then that the board were not suited for running a plc but their trough kept being filled.
This doesn't only apply to Val, but to all small bio companies. This is a example to all. The government should step in and finance/control our country's technology.
The small man has spoken.
HeidHoncho, if Val is liquid then it will be hard to liquidate it. The problem is that if Val cannot pay its creditors it will become insolvent and then the BOD would follow the cvl or worse still conpusly liquidation routes. There is absolutely no room for compliancy here. No one really wants to see the company go bust, but there is absolutely no reason for anyone to trust the BOD if they are not willing to work together with shareholders to start turning things around. The problem is that there are so many LTH's who have lost so much that calling in the administrators dosnt have that much more effect on losses made. The really sad thing is the post earlier today that pointed out that if the BOD had brought more shares they would have had more votes. Worse still if they were willing to put their money where their mouth is today's vote might not have been needed.
HeidHoncho,
Valirx could make staff redundant and in the process bankrupt the company - the Director's then have responsibility under the Insolvency Act to act in the benefit of Creditors, not shareholders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_trading
Apologies Bankfool, I intended “Bankfool”, but bloody autocorrect changed it without me noticing it when I typed it.
Bank fool, thank you for the steer there.
As I had anticipated, the BoD cannot liquidate the company without the approval of 75% of the shareholders.
So no chance of them achieving anything on the sly, with regards to dissolving the company against their shareholders will.
Additionally, the liquidator will perform a forensic review of the accounts, so were any dubious accounting practices, which may not necessarily be illegal/fraudulent as it would also encompass anything that was conducted that wasn’t in the shareholders best interests, then those practices, were there any, would be unearthed.
And that would carry a potential penalty of them being unable to secure future directorships for a period of between 2 and 15 years, and were the practices be identified that were not in the shareholders best interests that may open them up for criminal proceedings, were of course such practices to have been identified.
Note. I am in no way intimating that any such devious and despicable practices having occurred, I am merely pointing out what the potential ramifications may be had indeed such practices occurred.
IMHO
That said liquidating the company is cutting off their nose to spite their face. It would still be beneficial for the BOD to inject some cash to give others reason to do the same. The fact that they don't is the real cause for concern.
HeidHoncho, there is useful information about putting your company into administration at the gov. UK website
https://www.gov.uk/liquidate-your-company
If the company is liquid they will need a members vote (see MVL) . Don't think I will be voting in favor of liquidation myself! Other than the option is that I think they will have to do a CVL. We as shareholders get the residue left over after paying creditors, so it is most likely we would not see a penny if the company is liquidated. This is the normal outcome for shareholders.
George was probably out today with his new backers selling them the val dream and promising to get the IP for a song from the administrators imho.
I am only 99.6% down personally. Decisions lol.
I may be wrong here, but might be something worth consideration.
I think creditors may be able to challenge a company from not necessarily be put into administration, but may be able to challenge the basis of a company from being dissolved once put into administration with the administrators once it is there.
Like I said, way too far out of my depth here to be confident, but may be something worth raising with any qualified legal friends anyone may have out there.
IMHO