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.
Mmmm does seem that they are managing thier risk Roses.
Well suppose my opinion hadn't changed, the RNS is better than a kick in the trousers, but not much better than being kicked in the trousers. Guess we will just have to see how things play out, especially with the outcome of vote on GM and SV looming.
Bank fool, the devil is in the detail.
The rns states that another one of the many restrictions and caveats that the new broker has placed on the company is that they are not allowed to do any further placings, raisings or anything dilutive until the current situation is resolved and the new broker is in receipt of the new shares, which will guarantee that they will not be diluted before they are able to offload/forward sell them
Win win for them after they have taken their fees !
Ah, Roses, that's informative, thanks. That said why get rid of the previous broker? Not complaining, as I said myself I think having a grown up at the table is probably a step in the right direction.
Not sure about the new broker's holding though. Monecor only held circa 3% so not sure why a new broker would want to hold 10 times as much (sounds like a missive risk, unless they plan to realese the shares relatively quickly)? . Also I would expect ValiRx to immediately release a holdings RNS or if this isn't required for the broker, to update thier website (it hasn't been, surprise surpise). However if there has been a 50% increase in shares and they have all gone to the new broker, then mathematically they have to be holding about 33% of the shares in issue as odd as that might seem. Hopefully we will be able to confirm major shareholder holdings soon.
Bank fool, to answer some of your questions
You asked:
“ I doubt that the funds raised will be instantly consumed in wages. If that was the case why aponit a new broker?”
By law the company has to retain a broker and one of the many conditions this new broker insisted on was that it acted as the sole broker going forward.
“Also confused by the news article that the shares had been issued to "new shareholders". How do you know? What does new mean? It seems if they really are "new" in the sence that they have never held shares in Val before “
The rns states that the new broker is the entity that is providing 100% of the cash for the placing and as any prudent person owning 31.5% of a company would do to save said company, they have insisted on installing their own director.
As the new broker is the new owner of the new shares, they are the ‘new investor’ that the rns refers to.
Hth I am inclined to agree, but it does look dangerously close to looking like a grown up has come along to help teach the kids about how money works.
Back in January I asked if the company would be here in a year's time. Its still far from certain.
So with this new non executive director, is this an admission of we fooked up maybe ? Doubt it though with these shallow individuals!
I have had a look today's RNSs it seems that today has been better than a kick in the pants, but not much better.
The new broker https://peterhousecap.com/our-team/#Mg would appear legit and the aponitment of a director from the broker to a non-exec role at Val might indicate a more hands on and intelligent approach to future funding.
The funds raised I suppose will give a bit of breathing space, but I still don't see much evidence that change is coming.
I doubt that the funds raised will be instantly consumed in wages. If that was the case why aponit a new broker?
I don't understand the numbers in the voting results. I assume that in order to block a resolution circa 77 million shares (5% of the 1.536 billion shares in issue at the time) was required. However I am not sure about that.
Also confused by the news article that the shares had been issued to "new shareholders". How do you know? What does new mean? It seems if they really are "new" in the sence that they have never held shares in Val before they will be into a losser like the rest of us. Just can't see what the ponit of calling them new is, just seems like journalistic nonsence.