The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
We’ve been royally stitched up - I will definetly vote no - but we need to tell Gary and all before the hearing - negotiate a better deal for shareholders or we’ll vote no and that’s the end of Amigo - customers get less , and the company goes - you cannot look after bondholders, customers and staff and stitch up shareholders - the judge should be told but we need to be unified, please everyone cloning together and become activist shareholder - together we have the power to stop this and the downside is peanuts
No doubt creditors will vote 42% now share holders have been wiped out almost then amigo will do what they do best surprise us with another lock in.
One thing for shareholders to bear in mind is that Amigo goes to court in less than three weeks to ask the judge to allow creditors to vote. The judge will want to know - after the previous judge found information was not full or accurate - that creditors have very clear information about how the Scheme will work.
The Practice Statement Letter - sent to creditors on 13 December - says that a CONDITION of the scheme is that “Amigo raises at least £70m of finance within 12 months of the Scheme Effective Date from external sources”.
Creditors have already been given this figure and they will be voting on the basis that, if the condition is not met, Amigo will be wound down. If Amigo starts fiddling with the proposal close to or during the vote, I can’t see the judge liking that.
I think the course is now set. How can it be changed before court?
Totally agree with you.
As a holder of Nearly £2m shares I have now accepted that they are worth C8ck all and probably will never be worth anything
Gary and his board of numpties couldn’t arrange a P!55 up in a brewery….
….it’s easy to blame the FCA or the people who took out loans but the reality is that the BoD’s completely misjudged the first hearing and have been floundering since
They are now dumping shareholders to feather their own nests and have become gimps of the FCA
What a mess and a great lesson in how to F*c£ up what was once a great business
Some further thoughts. The RNS is patently false. The argument that 95% is market standard is not supported by Gary’s letter.
In his letter, I also think Gary overstates the judge’s position about the amount of dilution required by the judge. In this regard, he repeats the lie / inaccuracy of the RNS. The judge said (e.g. paragraph 134):
“It is commonplace in corporate restructurings for the equity holders to be compelled to sacrifice AT LEAST PART of their interests. There was nothing to explain why the directors of the Company were proposing that the shareholders should … retain the whole of their interest in the Group while the Scheme Creditors should accept a 90% haircut. There was no material analysis to explain why … this was in the best interests of the Scheme Creditors”.
The judge did not say Amigo had failed to conform to a 95% standard. It was the contrast between ZERO loss for shareholders and 90% loss for creditors. The judge’s test was whether the balance of losses was IN THE INTERESTS OF SCHEME CREDITORS. It was NOT about whether it inflicts a 95% loss.
But there are questions of honesty, accuracy here and basic competence here. The judge called out Amigo because the information for Scheme 1 was “not sufficiently full or accurate” (paragraph 138). I support the idea that shareholders need to take a haircut. But I resent Gary and team inventing fake “market standards” to justify their CHOICE to inflict a 95% haircut.
I fear Amigo has swung from one extreme to the other. Scheme 1 was excessively harsh and inaccurately explained to creditors, Scheme 2 appears to be excessively harsh and inaccurately explained to shareholders.
On both counts, this shiny new management team has shown terrible judgment and questionable integrity, posing real risks to the firm.
This won't rise much to many wanting to get out.
If your going to get stung by a wasp your going to swat it,its the same here ..1.2m little votes against this very poor judgement,im not ****ed loosing money im ****ed how sly they've been simple.
It'll get through the court. Just may not mean much to us.
So they don't know the amount or the price of the equity raise yet and the capital required is "up to" £300m.some unknowns out there. Will just have to sit tight and wait on court outcomes although I fear the worst. The slightest half descent rise on the SP and most I'm sure will be off.
Yes i know, but they should have had to be a bit less demanding and settle on half the pain we are about to receive if hold on.. ah well
LTHcine - this was 1 of 8 or so possible solutions the customer committee was offered and they rejected it.
We are going to have to agree to disagree I think. To me, creditors are entitled to 100p. If we want to give them 42p and retain any value then we have to take this hit.
I suspect you don't believe the creditors deserve redress and that is affecting your judgement. There's an argument there for sure but it's time has passed and we lost.
We did that last time. Shareholders winning looks terrible when you're trying to pay creditors 42p in the £.
They tried hardballing the FCA and judge once before and it unravelled spectacularly.
HH - without new lending, we have nothing. If FCA wants a 95% haircut to allow new lending then that's what we have to accept or take nothing.
HH.... " Do shareholders really care about the future if they only own 5% of it?"
Perhaps this is a bit simplistic but, wouldn't 5% of a sucessful and profitable 'AmigoV2' give those holding large paper losses the chance to recoup said losses over time.? Especially if in a couple of years time the SP reaches a respectable PE of say 20-25 ( fingers crossed !!)
GLA
I hope I am not the only one who thinks that 5% of a multi-million pound company is a lot better than 100% of nothing !!!
GLA
If shareholders are really going to vote this down then I'm out. I would stay for the hope value but if the majority are like HH then there's no hope.
I made a massive error here and banked on a 50% dilution. I was wrong to the power of 10. I'm gutted but I also felt on receiving the RNS that there was at least now less of a chance of insolvency. I'm getting concerned that shareholders are bringing that possibility back.
Rosie, what's your point? I would prefer a clean shave over a 95% haircut. I believe most shareholders will follow suit but let them get through the hurdles first. I hope the performance would be worth the remaining 5%.
Still a lot of wishful thinking. We own a company who's liabilities exceed it's worth that currently cannot earn money. The only way we get any value is to stump up enough to cover our liabilities and start lending again. Wishing it wasn't so won't help.
in the judges notes from scheme hearing, off top of my head i think it was #78 says that it is commonplace for "some" equity to be transferred to creditors via debt for equity swap. WHY HAVNT WE DONE WHAT IS COMMONPLACE!! Give them 475m shares in ALL SCHEME and sell to the market when it reaches say 50p
Spot on hereshopin my thoughts exactly. Gary has forgotten his place, he represents the shareholder and his current offer is delusional. With the % loss most will
Be sitting with currently an additional 5% really isn’t worth playing ball for. If I’m taking a haircut that large they claimants and the BOD can also. It’s a no from me
yes 95% dilution on top of our 85% losses currently, full 100% wipe out..
Shareholders have had it...............
He can shove his 5% up his arse!!! I will not be voting for his scheme. Administration it is.
The RNS has been discussed here and most came to the same conclusion that Amigo PLC has to show that there are no benefits to the shareholders ahead of the creditors. A minimum of 19:1 is not set in stone and subject to market situation in the future.
Volume bought: 11m
Volume sold: 4.5m