Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
Thanks Ivy - will be voting FOR
No worries,
Really looking to see what headroom May have been asked for in Resolutions 9 and 10.
Does not appear to be asking for a huge extra amount if I understand it correctly.
Appreciate any other thoughts.
Ivy, the legalese used in 9 and 10 is a nighmare. I found the explanatory notes more helpful. In short, I think it's a very longwinded way of saying that they may well need cash in a hurry and this gives them the ability to raise up to £1.7m from a friendly investor without the hassle of going through the formalities of share issuance. The very specific number is intriguing as it is too small for the placing that we know is highly likely after the FDA's pronouncement. No doubt some cynic will suggest it's for BoD pay rises!!
Assume you're going to the AGM so one of many questions to join what is no doubt a lengthy list. Unfortunately I won't be able to make it this year so look forward to your feedback
Hi Rebarm,
Back from pub and yes that was my understanding that they only intend to raise the £1.7m which is a little more than a few months cash burn so tells me they have a clear plan moving forward.
Intend to go to AGM and get a better feel for how things are and chat to BOD.
Encourage all interested parties to attend but up to individuals.
What always amazes me and why I post less is the total certainty that some folk have as to any outcome positive or negative.
We all invest on the basis of likely outcome and as the CRL has shown we can get it wrong as do the BOD in terms of expectation.It does not mean that they have totally failed or misled investors but obviously it was a hell of a setback.
I like most others hopefully make decisions in the light of fullest information so attend the AGM and ask your questions and make your criticisms like imo the lack of a contingency plan.
TC
Ivy, it’s not confirmed yet mtfb will definitely be attending, or at least I haven’t heard, but I know they’ve been invited to present at the TPi investor evening event, May 13th I believe, would be good to have your knowledge there to cross examine and could provide an earlier interrogation date. Guess a call to Turner Pope Monday would perhaps clarify
These are 1,7mln nominal, that equals 170mln shares at one p. Or am I wrong??
no i think you are quite correct hannibal.its exactly 50%of the current issued share capital imo.i may be wrong and happy to be corrected.i did try and find last years agm resolutions but all i could find were directions back to the motif website but never the actual detail.not really sure whether its a bad or good thing.from the perspective of potential dilution its not good but from the perspective of giving the bod potential firepower for fundraising/ partnership negotiations etc it may be very positive which is the spin its given in the notes to the resolutions.would be very interested in other posters views
Are they all nominally 1p shares when issued, presumably they would be linked to the open market share price when they are issued.
The placing last year at 30p ish were 1p shares.
The company proposes to have the ability to raise £1.7M cash quickly . Why they don't want to do it thru a placing and why the figure is so exact, to the last £, seems like they have something particular in mind. The 1p is just the par value of our shares, so don't worry about that, we won't be diluted to the tune of 170M shares. The placing last month was for MTFB ordinary 1p shares but they were placed at 6p .
Thanks Ivy for putting that link up. Does annoy me the language they use in these documents, makes it virtually unreadable. If that was the language they used in their NDA I'd give them a complete response letter straight away!
the nominal value of the shares would require a resolution for it to be changed.all issued shares have a nominal value of1p as would any new shares issued pursuant to the new authority sought in the AGM resolution.sorry but i think jam2morrows interpretation is incorrect.if passed they could issue £1.7m nominal value of shares ie170million plus shares.50%of the current shares in issue.happy to be proved wrong if someone can post a reasoned contrary view
“ordinary shares of one penny each in the capital of the Company (“Ordinary Shares”) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £1,712,455“
Given that they have requested to have the opportunity to raise up to an aggregate “nominal” amount of £1,712,455 is that note allied to the ordinary share having a “nominal” value of £0.01 ?
i.e. that gives them the right to issue up to an additional 171,245,500 shares.
But it should be noted, that is just an authority to issue up to that number of shares without calling an EGM to raise more, not that they will use all, or indeed any, of that authority.
exactly correct HeidHoncho
Heidhoncho and Italian, Re-reading this and I think you are right. They are asking for the authority to issue up to 170M shares in the company. Of course the price they will issue them at will depend on market. Tis would explain the very exact number - almost exactly half of the 342M and a bit shares in issue.
I note that from the proposal notes:
'' Resolutions 9 and10 are asking shareholders to re-new until the conclusion of the 2020 AGM it's share issuance and pre-emption disapplication authorities''
So if it is to be re-newed then it is in place already, and just gives the company the authority to go ahead with a placing like they did last month. Up to 50% of the company.
Good work you two
Jam2morrow yes i did wonder about the use of "renew" which is why i tried to find last years resolution but without success .personally I'm not worried about it at all.glad its all clear .cheers
I do not think that is a placing of 170mln shares at 1p. If it is going to be at 1p then why did they raise the last one at 6p? If it is going to be at 1p then they would also be mentioning about the reasons for the discount on the prevailing market price at that time. To me it just only means that they are called penny shares as it is listed on AIM. So for a FTSE 100 share like Taylor wimpey, they call it 10p shares but that doesn't mean placing is done at 10p.
small trader no one is suggesting that a value of 1p would be ascribed to any share issue/placement.the reference to 1p is simply a reference to the nominal value of the shares i.e. how they re denominated which denomination is fixed by the company when it is formed and can be changed by resolution if appropriate e.g. on a stock split or a consolidation.we are talking about how many shares the company is seeking formal authority to issue etc should the occasion arise which number is over 170 million.the value at which any placing took place would be determined at the time it took place and would depend on the usual factors e.g. the then current m/v of shares currently in issue any discount to such value given on issue etc.the nominal value of the shares has nothing to do with the market value when new shares are issued.so for example you can have shares with a nominal value of say10p which are actually trading at £1 or 1p.apologies if I'm stating the obvious but simply trying to clarify matters.also not suggesting there is going to be a placing of any or all the shares for which authority is being sought.pretty obviously there is going to be some sort of issue /fund raise but the details are completely unknown and will be determined by the circumstances at the time.
Thanks Italian.
If you needed to get a partnership after approval to bring the drug to market would you not need a large amount of shares to offer ?
Flag 1 was the new guy and I believe imo anyway this is flag 2.
Both a positive sign at present .
--> The.Italian
Re your post Sun 28Apr @1847: Nominal value/Placing price of 6p.
Well nipped in the bud matey, who knows how far
that could have snowballed in the wrong hands.
Could have changed the whole week ahead. Hugh.
thanks HJ.yes that one really did sound alarm bells
birdseye agree entirely with your comment re partnership.as i mentioned yesterday it gives them great potential flexibility and i am happy to take the guidance notes at face value as to the reasons.
The flexibility I would rather see in the direction, that in case of a failure of Iclaprim, a possibly new drug can be bought, which they try to bring that to the market. (They have alreade proven, to be able in a short time) As I wrote a few weeks ago, I´m rather cautious. Please attend the AGM and ask all this questions.
yes hanibal i agree it would give them flexibility in that direction also,which is good thing.hopefully won't be necessary!