Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. 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.
https://www.investegate.co.uk/love-hemp-group-plc--life-/rns/request-to-requisition-general-meeting/202203041803487662D/
Come on people wake up! Look what's happening. Crap timing
quiet here considering the serious concerns raised by Pershing, all understandable - very fishy goings on here for many months - insiders / family members / management lining their pockets with pi’s money
Awful timing and hoping this isn't the start of a downward spiral. I really want to see this on the main market
Morning SamBar and thank you for your thoughts.
My question is also around CEO and director salaries. Has anyone had any confirmation as to the salary of the CEO which I have seen cited at £250,000?
It is important we vote with correct information to hand.
Maybe worth taking each resolution one by one for people's opinions?
1- 1. THAT Andrew Male be removed from office as Chairman of the Company with immediate effect pursuant to section 168 of the Act;
I have talked with Andrew a few times and he seems studious and knowledgeable so not quite sure what he has done incorrect? I feel that items like marketing spend have certainly been out of control but that was a board decision and not necessarily just down to AM?
Thoughts?
2. THAT salaries of all directors and any board members be reduced by 75% and benchmarked against similar companies to the Company;
I actually find this resolution does not make sense?
Board members to take a cut by 75% but also benchmarked against similar companies?
Weird.
Which point are shareholders voting against as the two statements could easily be vastly different....
Whichever lawyer drafted this point needs to be chastised as an imbecile could have written it better in my view.
Thoughts?
3. THAT a strategic review of the Company be undertaken and that the Company to be put up for sale or a search is launched for a strategic partner;
The more I read these resolutions the more I am getting concerned that something not positive is happening here.
Why do I say that.
Again, the resolution is asking two distinctly different questions so it makes it hard to vote for or against.
First question - A strategic review of the company be undertaken - I would argue yes, I agree - nothing wrong with shareholders seeing the company revised/latest strategy and what the board want to achieve in the coming year to three years.
Second question - That the company be put up for sale OR a search is launched for a strategic partner...
This is ridiculous and I sense the dissenting shareholders may know this to be the case. Obviously, my opinion but ridiculous timing to suggest the company seeks a buyer given the significant positive news delivered of late.
I would have to vote No to this question but of course you cannot vote No given the resolution is asking shareholders to vote on two completely differing questions with one resolution.
Hmmmmm indeed?
Hi SamBar,
I am not sorry either as I think pushback and challenge can be good.
I do think the timing of this whole situation could have been better, especially as I would think that the owners of the near 10% could surely have waited until the full listing?
To issue the legal letter prior almost seems to smack of wishing to disrupt the listing, but maybe I am looking at this too cynically.
The daft thing is I felt some of the concerns raised were fair end of last year, but the progress announced this last three months has given me a feeling that some serious progress can be made across 2022 -
- cash in the bank
- UFC product close to being agreed
- AJ commitment to assist in the marketing efforts
- Ebay sales
- Amazon sales increasing
- Deliveroo sales
- ECargo Asian sales confirmed
- November announced as a solid month
- Two new high calibre NED's have joined one ex UFC so hopefully influential on the UFC partnership
And then we get de-stabilised again...
I agree with Roley's various points.
4 THAT a review of recent financial history of the Company be conducted to determine use of capital of the Company
I do not think shareholders can vote agst this review taking place and given where the company sits today I would vote Yes to this resolution.
One comment I would make is that all contracts and transactions would surely have been reviewed by the senior management, agreed by the board and documented through to the Nomad prior to any RNS's being delivered. That is accepted practise and I would be disappointed if that proved to be incorrect.
The one area of concern I have (and I have raised it with AM) would be that marketing spend of £6.3m - being 146% of the annual revenue number seems ridiculously high and it would be good to see the board approval of said spend and the justification. I have never seen a spend so high and I would argue 10-50% of revenues would be more normal depending on a companies ambition and stage of growth.
5 THAT the Company be operated such that it becomes self-sufficient based on its current income. All marketing spend to be halted.
Again, two differing questions being asked to vote upon in one resolution.
I do wonder what was behind drafting in such a way as again I have to vote no when if asked as two resolutions I would vote Yes to part one and an obvious no to part two.
So, part one asks us to vote on the company being operated in a self sufficient manner on current revenues. odd question as any company having £4.3m of revenue in it's previous reporting year should surely be managed in a way to drive growth and thus it could be understood that forecasting a loss could be acceptable.
That said, the resolution should and could have been worded far better in maybe asking shareholders to vote on the company being operated on a break even basis at cost of sales level?
Part two asks for shareholders to vote on Zero marketing spend going forward.
I cannot agree to this but I would like to see the board agree maybe 20% maximum spend in this area going forwrad and any significant individual spend (say 7.5% or revenue) having to be approved by shareholders.
It is clear for me that the company must spend some funds on Marketing, Sponsorship and PR. It would be churlish to think otherwise. A clear No from me.
In summary,
I am amazed at how poorly structured the 5 points have been delivered and I have to decide finally how I wish to vote but the way in which they have been written suggests they have set themselves up to fail in three of the 5 resolutions.
I am also a little suspicious at the timing but that may have been out of there control given the suggestion that these points were raised in December. It certainly could have been better timed given the full listing.
Overall, I do think the company is in better shape today than 12 months ago and even four months ago and maybe just maybe the group of shareholders may have been better served staying close to the board and working through each of these issues in private as few companies progress in the months that issues of this nature overhang.
So, I think it may be fair to say I am frustrated at where we have ended but understand the shareholders have the right to call this EGM and I will be looking to attend in person if that is allowed?
EGM is waste of time. Won't go through and just causing unneccessary distraction. This is a decent turnaround play and the board are in a strong position to really see some huge upside in the months ahead. Cashed up at 1p and have exclusive Ebay UK deal which is fantastic. Upside is good from here