Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. 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.
Seems like Hassan Heikal wants to be reappointed....come on Seafox make up your mind!
Anyone care to speculate what might be going on behind the scenes in the GMS boardroom?
Something is cooking!
Link is broken. Did do a search but not finding anything Whats the spill?
Mansour Al Alami
Was a board member previously......interesting
Who is this JADPI? The URL is not working...
Slightly surprised that the board hasn't made an announcement since they received the Seafox letter last Thursday - probably gauging the interest of Mazroui & Horizon
At 10p I'd vote no at 22p I'd vote yes.....simply based on my average in price and boredom in this name. Value aside I've just got too much tied up in here and I'd like to get out with some form of uptick!
And worse yet, if 10p is their intention, it will have to be next year since they paid 22p in June
With the banks seemingly holding the balls (of shareholders), I am wondering what is the play left for Seafox. Can't do value destructive moves since we are only few steps away from bankruptcy/administration. Either they bring in capital or they buy out minority (and still bring in capital). Alternately could they try to sell the rigs (with the backlog) individually to Seafox? Not a bad idea if the deal is done at 10x+ gross cash profit of the rig
GruffJ, even more importantly, would you accept 10p per share as it may be that is what their intention is.
10 days to call the AGM....tick tock
Spot on
@GruffJ - that is preciesely what Seafox wants everyone to think :)
Let's see if they make a bid at 22p or they drive it further lower, frustrate shareholders, and then make a bid at 10p in a year
Would you take 22p if offered at the end of Nov? Personally, given how long I've been invested here and how messy the management of this company/board is going to be going forward, I would take 22p and accept the discount to NAV in order to move on to less painful and drawn out plays.....
The letters and RNSs though entirely professional in their language are like bickering and finger pointing. I don't know who to believe! If what Seafox say is true, they raise some very interesting points and the idea of a board run by experts in the region with knowledge and contacts would be highly beneficial. But I can't ignore the previous takeover bid so their intentions probably aren't so innocent. Then GMS say its all accusations are false and factually innaccurate, but are they just saying that to protect themselves?
Ultimately I believe the resolutions will inevitably pass. Mazrui and Horizon helped them with their first board appointments so I imagine they'll vote for the second set as well (unless the whole process is disallowed by the panel of mergers and takeovers...)
Will be an interesting fight, with the RNS out today.
@ CaptNemo - yes, i was thinking along the same lines that the $75m would be from a single party. I don't see the board having agreed to the bank debt conditions without having some sort of visibility on this.
Seafox allegations are rubbish. They talk about "ruinous agreements which rely heavily on shareholder support" on the issue of warrants.....well guess what - the only shareholders who opposed this was Seafox, Mazroui and Horizon. And of course, the company doesn't seek shareholder approval before there is a concrete plan.
Have to see the position of Mazroui because they have the swing vote. Perhaps they are sellers at 22p and Seafox has agreed on a bid post lock up, or Mazroui believes in long term value creation by Seafox (i don't trust them), or Mazroui benefits elsewhere in their energy portfolio by holding on to this investment.
In any case, I think the binding agreements with the bank makes some sort of action inevitable - will that be an equity increase of a full buyout by Seafox is the only question.
Thanks for the link 4Corners - interesting reading.
I have been thinking about the timing..... Could it be possible that the $75m required could be coming from a single 3rd party, rather than a general rights issue to existing share holders?? That would dilute SF 29.9% stake and give the current team at GMS another ally - something SF would be dead set against.
Just for the record, I have no problem selling to SF IF they come up with a decent offer, what I do have a problem with is piracy.....
That is a lot of detail published by SeaFox there, and interesting to see both sides of the correspondence.
Also interesting timing. So GMS now has to issue notice within 21 days calling a GM, and the date of the GM has to be within 28 days after that. Assuming the Board delay it the maximum they are allowed (as they did last time) that would take us to mid November.
SeaFox are free to launch another bid for GMS (if they want to) from November 28th anyway (6 months after they said no intention to bid on 28th May)
Yes, theoretically should not be allowed. Mazroui voting for them opened the doors, and I doubt they would make such a move without expecting Mazroui to support them in the case it goes to a vote - clearly they can't win without Mazroui's 12.5% stake vote. Question is what does Mazroui seek out of this ? They did not support the 10p bid. Are they happy to accept a 22p bid? Or they happy to give control to Seafox and expect things to be better?
The consolation is the debt deal. If they don't do a rights issue by Dec, then warrants have to be issued. Warrants can be issued with shareholder approval. If no warrants, banks can call the pledged assets, which is all the rigs. So there has to be something that will happen.
Seems like SeaFox are trying to take control of GMS without paying to take control via a takeover offer.
At present SeaFox have 2 directors in a board of 7. That’s 28.5% control of the Board which seems equitable when they hold 29.99% of the shares and voting rights.
Thy are proposing to get rid of 4 existing directors and replace them with 3 of their own people. That would mean they controlled 5 out of a board of 6 or 83.3% of the Board but they have only paid for a 29.9% stake. Totally disproportionate and should not be allowed in my opinion.
This latest tactic from SF is very hostile to those share holders, my self included, who feel that GMS is worth considerably more than it's current SP.
It's a very brazen attempt to stuff the Board with people who would rubber stamp SF next paltry 'offer' for GMS which would be far below it's true valve and definitely NOT in best interests of the majority of shareholders.
Yeah, very hostile. Funny thing is Mo Bisisso represents 10% ownership and they want him out too
Seems like a very aggressive way to takeover the bod. The thing is, if Mazrui supports them again then the resolution will go through if it goes to a general meeting. Looks like Seafox can get their own way no matter what.