Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
How can a publicly listed company provide sureties for a shareholders company/bank?
Major shareholder clearly not working in the best interest of the company
Reading between the lines it looks like the controlling shareholder by cutting off the firm's access to cash is trying to push it into an artificial default. By doing so it could then cause the company to be liquidated and assets picked up at a song.
In short a heist that looks alarmingly like the sort of thing that would happen in pre ware Russia.
The oligarch wins we little shareholders lose.
I can’t buy this because the country is in war but you couldn’t ask for more than what they reported today. To build cash reserves and comment that they’ve increased capacity in q1 is quite a feat. Iron prices now stronger is obviously material also. Good luck
Maybe someone can help me out here. In respect of the contested sureties claim. On 7 December 2022, FPM received a claim in the amount of UAH4,727 million (US$124,450 thousand as at 31 December 2023) in respect of contested sureties. These contested sureties relate to Bank F&C, a Ukrainian bank owned by the Group’s controlling shareholder and which the Group previously used as its main transactional bank in Ukraine. . A Supreme Court hearing on 17 April 2024 considered primarily procedural matters and the next court hearing is scheduled for 27 May 2024.
How would this have a material effect against the business and its ability to continue as a going concern? Surely its not a big enough claim!
Yep things are looking up. The company was said to be resilient in 2022 and 2023, they are still at it turning every obstacle around. Todays RNS was a long read, the key bit was getting that 3rd pelletiser going. They have 4 and were only using one fully in 2023, and a second one as they could meet export demands once storage was full. Getting the 3rd one going means 1 and 2 are running at full capacity. With the safe corridor in the Black Sea in operation and that extra pelletiser running growth to the bottom line will now be significant for Q1 and even more so in Q2 vs 2023. It's fortunate they have a steadfast and loyal customer base.
note 2 & note 14
in respect of the contested sureties claim mentioned above, no enforcement procedures have commenced as at the date of the approval of these consolidated financial statements. furthermore, on 1 april 2024 the supreme court suspended the possible enforcement of the decision of the ukrainian court of appeal, so that such enforcement procedures cannot be initiated by the claimant until a final decision is made by the supreme court, or the supreme court's suspension order is otherwise lifted. as at the date of the approval of these consolidated financial statements, no decision has been made by the supreme court in the contested sureties claim and the next hearing is scheduled for 27 may 2024. the
commencement of the enforcement procedures could potentially have a material negative impact on the group’s business activities and its ability to continue as a going concern. see note 14 commitments, contingencies and legal disputes for further information, which should be read in conjunction with this note.
if the ukrainian anti-corruption court concludes that a judge received a bribe for the favourable decision in the share dispute case, and such verdict of the anti-corruption court remains valid after any potential appeal, then the claimants may apply to the supreme court to review the decision of the grand chamber of the supreme court given on 19 april 2023 due to exceptional circumstances. in february 2024, all four claimants were dissolved according to the records at the uk companies house. as at the date of the approval of these consolidated financial statements, no allegations have been made against the group in connection with the alleged bribery and it is currently not possible to anticipate future developments in this case with any certainty.
if the case were to be reviewed by the grand chamber of the supreme court once again, management remains of the view that *** has compelling legal arguments to defend its position. based on the legal considerations and arguments in the case and taking into account the advice received from the group’s ukrainian legal advisors, management remains of the view that the decision should be in favour of the group, but there is a risk that the independence of the judicial system and its immunity from economic and political influences in ukraine is not upheld. a hypothetical reversal of the decision by the grand chamber of the supreme court would result in the loss of a significant proportion of the shareholding in the group’s main operating subsidiary in ukraine, which holds approximately 65% of the group’s non-current operating assets, and would have a material adverse impact on the shareholders’ equity attributable to the shareholders of ferrexpo plc. due to the uncertainties, it is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the financial impact, but it could be material. a negative decision could also have an impact on potential future dividends from fpm to *** and, as resu
Looks like they are on the up operationally this year