George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. 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.
Pickler/James0309 - we don't know if Duferco sold their entire shareholding because the second TR1 took them below the 3% threshold for reporting.
The funds required to purchase the stake in EHL was an unknown amount so we don't know if the 2m sale was enough to cover it. It seems unlikely to me.
If they held some back to do what you suggest then that makes some sense of the current low share price. The GSA short doesn't make a big difference imo.
DBB - I realise that, but it creates uncertainty in the market if folks think that they might sell down again. Many will take the view that history will repeat itself. A $6.5m overhang will not make for a happy xmas.
Hi Mogwhy - I have looked at the RNS’s you mention and they clearly show that Duferco sold 2m shares at that time. However, this was to reduce their holding to less than the reporting figure of 3%. Do you have any proof that they have continued to sell their remaining 35m shares, like a Bloomberg screen shot showing the entire shareholding in Bushveld?
@mogwhy - so could Duferco now be a seller again of their first tranche of shares, just enough to hold the SP down long enough for them to maximise the next batch of shares heading their way?
Mogwhy, That doesn't mean that they are going to do the same with the next tranch.
Pickler - go and read carefully the 2 RNS's that were issued on 2nd Feb 2021.
Duferco started selling down on the same day that they were issued the shares ie 24th December.
@Pickler: intriguing and impressive analysis. I have been offering my own thoughts that FM has been intentionally down- playing the progress of BMN for some unknown reasons, and your suggestion offers a very plausible (IMHO) logic behind such a strategy. I re-iterate Pdub's comment that... "if there is substance to it then November could be a very interesting month".
Cordially
Lionel
Even ignoring the new valuation of Vanchem.
Don't forget the discount FM managed to get a few months after the initial bid which was about $14.5m.
This should compensate for any less attractive deals we have to do now to get over the line. Like Pdub said the dilution from Duferco is paltry compared to past deals and warrants.
As previously notified on 23 October 2019, the total consideration for the acquisition was reduced from US$68 million to US$53.5 million, of which US$30.5 million was payable in cash (US$30 million on closing and US$0.5 million after two years) and the balance (US$23.0 million) would be satisfied through the issue of Bushveld Minerals unsecured convertible loan notes. The Company is pleased to announce that:
Pickler that is a very thought provoking idea.if there is substance to it then November could be a very interesting month.
We do need to get rid of the GSA Capital Partners crowd.
With the final redemption of CLN’s awarded to Duferco, as part of the deal for the purchase of Vanchem, approaching fast I thought it would be worth revisiting the details of the deal hopefully summarized below.
BMN agreed a revised purchase price of $57.5m with $30m cash paid on completion, $2.5m deferred and CLN’s issued for the remaining $23m.
50% of the CLN’s were due for redemption on the 7/11/20 and the remainder on 7/11/21
BMN have negotiated to settle both redemptions with $5m cash and $6.5m (£4.7m) in shares The RNS dated 18/12/20, regarding the first partial payment of Duferco convertible loan notes, shows that a total of 37m shares were issued to Duferco
If the second redemption of $6.5m (£4.7m) is redeemed in shares at an average SP of 10p, this would equate to a further 47m shares being issued to Duferco and increasing the total shares in issue to 1.24b giving Duferco a total holding of 6.8%.
Looking back at the RNS for the end of the 2019 financial year it is shown that there was an independent valuation of Vanchem carried out to establish, under IFRS 3 rules, a Fair Value Calculation of the assets purchased from Duferco. This resulted in the assets being re-valued at $118m and a “Bargain Purchase” adjustment of $60m added to the company profits for the year.
Had BMN agreed to pay the “Fair Value” for the assets at $118m (£87m), this would have required an additional payment of $60m (£46m) which BMN did not have and would have required expensive financing or a share placement at the time of purchase, which could have resulted in 230m shares at 20p being offered to the market giving a dilution of 18.5%. This, together with the dilution from the CLN redemptions would have resulted in a total dilution of over 25%
Duferco must surely have realized the true value of Vanchem and appreciated the vast potential for BMN, particularly with the inclusion of Vanchem. Did they agree to sell the business cheap and accept CLN’s knowing that they would recover way more than the loss incurred on this deal, and has the BOD been happy to hold off on any news to allow Duferco to realise a higher number of shares.
There is a concern among some investors about the low value of the SP and how Duferco are going to benefit from this but, if you consider the above, shareholders may end up with a 6.8%, or less, dilution whereas they could have ended up with a 25% dilution if Fair Value was paid for Vanchem. Also, consider that if Fortune had not been able to negotiate this deal then Vanchem would not have been part of the Bushveld group, which would have had a very material impact on the future performance, and share price, of the company.
I believe that this was another masterstroke by Fortune to protect shareholder value and I also believe Duferco will retain their shares, until they reach at least £1, to recoup the $100m (£72.5m) shortfall between the price they paid in 2008 for Vanchem ($160m) and the price they sold to