Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
@Rob. Pretty much spot on.
Your glass is very full if you manage to find a positive from what was a pretty bad statement about TY from that judge. I say positive, I should say either his mum or his friend lol.
OK, this might prove to be an interesting test in objectivity. TMO didn't win their case but the idea that deceitful behaviour wasn't exposed during the proceedings is obviously ludicrous.
Its very important to understand the nature of the case brought against Tim Yeo and other directors at the time. Its complex but essentially those that took over the company when it failed claimed a substantial loss because of the behaviour of the board before it failed. The judge is summary ruled that there was no additional loss even though she severely criticised the behaviour of individual board members including Tim Yeo therefore the claim was dismissed.
A couple of examples of her criticism of Tim Yeo I copy below. She basically said he wilfully misled shareholders and acted in bad faith in hi and other board members interest. To me they rather beg the question of whether or not he is a reliable and fit and proper person to chair a listed company
462. In all the circumstances, I accept that, on balance, Mr Yeo represented to Mr Parker that the money was "as good as in the bank", knowing that the representation was untrue. No money had been received and the Market Place Subscription provided only for the provision of the money on a long stop date. There is no suggestion that Mr Yeo told Mr Parker about the long stop date and he confirmed in cross examination that he had certainly never told Mr Caraballo about the two year deferral.
482 In my judgment, Mr Yeo (authorised by the Board) made a knowingly false implied representation to shareholders attending the EGM that £3 million in cash had been received in respect of the shares issued to a new subscriber, intending that it would induce shareholders not to change their vote or ask difficult questions.
487 As for TMO's submission that the Board withheld the terms of the Market Place Subscription from shareholders, I agree. The Director Defendants had a duty to the company to disclose their wrongdoing in entering into the Market Place Subscription in bad faith and with an improper purpose pursuant to Item Software (UK) Ltd v Fassihi [2005] 2 BCLC 91 (per Arden LJ at [40]-[41] and [64]-[68]). They failed to do so. In my judgment, the Director Defendants could not fulfil their duties of loyalty in this case except by disclosing to shareholders the terms of that transaction and their failure to do so is indeed a badge of impropriety, as TMO contends
508 In all the circumstances (and particularly given the misleading information provided in the 22 November letter) I infer that whether looked at subjectively or objectively, the rejection of the Andbell Loan Offer was a decision made in bad faith by the Director Defendants in circumstances where (I can only infer that) accepting the offer would have rendered futile their actions to retain control of TMO at the time of the EGM and opened those actions up to the scrutiny of a new board.
687 Second, there is similarly no basis on which I can find that the Director Defendants would be entitled to exoneration........The Director Defendants neither acted honestly nor reasonably,
This isn't finished yet!
I've been through that judgment and Tim Yeo does not come out well - although to be fair to him, he's not the only one.
Dr A Thanks for that. Very interesting. It is very unusual for a judge to tell a witness that they think their evidence is untrue, however, I will leave it to others to decide what they think of Mr Yeo.
What the truth surrounding Yeo in truth he has far too much baggage and has to go, I hear the ceo interviews are next month which is probably why Yeo was voted back in as a stop gap, at least it better be because as I say even the best laid intentions are brought to a grinding halt with the history he has
Dr A Don't want to prolong things but I think you are splitting hairs. It was Tim Yeo's case that was dismissed as I assume it was he who brought it. If I am wrong then I will gladly stand corrected.
Hi Dr A The headline on Guido Fawkes is " Judge slams dishonest Tim Yeo". If that is not a censure I don't know what is. He was found guilty of misusing his ' finuciary powers'. Also, he with others, was accused of ' a dishonest strategy for maintaining control of the Board'. He goes onto say that the strategy included misleading existing shareholders into thinking the company (TMO Renewables ) had just received a substantial cash investment when in reality new investors had not a penny had been invested.
The case was dismissed because he gave 'misleading evidence in court'. Legal speak for he lied.
Also Guido speculates Tim may face bankruptcy. Having said all that I do believe that this type of company is the future. For the record I have always read your comments and taken notice of what you say as you make a lot of sense. Good luck in the future.
This reminds me of another share that had huge potential - Avanti - that the brokers were quoting a target of £20 plus. It hit £7.30, and the fell, inexorably, to 1p through mismanagement. FOAK will not even be SOAK or TOAK here at this rate, if you get my meaning.
And where is the rebound we were told about last night?
Deeply p!ssed off.
Interesting article on Guido Fawkes regarding Mr Yeo and his recent court case.
Well said Dr.A. Am not happy with Yeo as see him only as a temporary. The fact that he is not independent suggests that he could be up to tricks to keep his mates nicely informed of developments ahead of news.
I agree with all of that Dr.A!
*here
The guy is a useless c**t and needs to go.......End of. He was useless at AFC and more so hear. Intent on feathering his own nest in someway but has neither the technical capability or leadership skills to deliver what is required to be in such a position. Poor client management with PEEL. Who has an exclusivity agreement with a company that fails to allow delivery of the FOAK project in the UK. A good leader would have sold the wears of PHE elsewhere and been ramming it down PEELs throat. 'Build the fooking plant or fook off'
I do understand that Dr A and understand your view point. Its not about the money today, not for me. Im still up nicely and as you will have seen me posting for some time now understand I likely got in at a decent price too (not as decent as yours). The anger isnt about did Tim do this on purpose, in many ways that would be easier to stomach, its the way in which it was done. The fact it likely wasn't meant bad just highlights how out of his depth Tim is.
Now for me, I plan to hold for possibly longer than yourself, but that doesn't mean I'm happy if we have a dud in charge.
I want whats best for PHE and I don't think Tim is. If your honest, do you really think he is the best we could get?
As for the emails. I already use that method but that doesn't mean I now think its ok to drop a 12 month delay without any reasoning.
You too seem like a good bloke in general but I feel you picked the wrong day to try to stick up for your mate Tim.
Yes they are Dr A, but you sound like your on the payroll.
How a 12 month plus delay doesn't concern you is beyond me.
Not intending to be personally but come on man, just once be normal and not sound like your being paid to promote them.
I don't think it was ever PHE's intention to be its own "developer" or if that was ever their strategy it was a long time ago. W2T were supposed to be the developer and to seek funds through an IPO, for about a year or 18 months or so if I remember correctly, but they failed to do so even with the support of Peel.
Eventually Peel undertook to be the UK developer on condition that PHE bought out W2T, which it did. At yet, even after doing that, PHE had to lend the funds to the SPV so that long lead items could be ordered.
I can't help feeling that PHE has had a raw deal all round, but it seems to have the resourcefulness and stamina to keep going.
We, shareholders, deserve to be kept informed about timelines and what is going on, and the PHE BoD in turn need to be kept up to date by Peel. Given today's announcements, it's really no wonder that the shareholders on here are losing patience.
DR A, why are you trying to convince people that somehow all the recent non work has been great?
You might be happy with delay after delay but a lot of investors are starting to call this for what it is, which is a poorly run project.
Great idea, poor leadership, which stays poor because people like yourself keep finding excuses for them instead of holding them to account.
You post some great stuff but this whole they can do no wrong thing you got going does you a diservice.
Yes Dr.A. I know how a SPV works, we used to call them Jont Ventures, then for some reason it was decided that that was old fashioned so it was given a new fancy name, probably adopted from the US!
But sometimes I get the feeling that some people may not have fully understood the financial structure that is being established here for the FOAK. I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest that PHE ought to have sought funding for the entire FOAK project, then we wouldn't have been held back while others tried to accumulate the funding for their share.
I actually believe that one of the main reasons, perhaps THE main reason, for the delay in achieving Financial Close is because Peel haven't been willing to put their hand in their own pocket and raise 50% of the equity for the SPV. They seem to be looking to get the funding for the FOAK from elsewhere, while PHE have raised funds to cover their share of the SPV.
They've raised £15M recently so I don't see why some people are saying PHE need to raise by a placing within the next 6 months or so. What is PHE going to spend it on?
I only hold a few thousand shares now but once held a lot more. For very good reasons, I'm not looking for long-term gains. I can't afford to speculate but choose companies that have a good chance of success and seem to have an intrinsic value to society.
I am quite literal and hope I can believe what I am told. However, once I suspect that someone is not being truthful, or is hiding material facts, my trust is lost.
Since I first posted this earlier today, there has been a lot of mixed reactions but many of them seem to agree with my view that we aren't being consulted and advised of reasons for delays.
There has been some defence of the Company by the usual claque, too. To those who say that an extra two years or so delay is OK, I say b/s. We should be kept advised and a proper schedule of works must be adhered to. I cannot believe that some things take so long.
I've seen some defence of the large family holdings but they should have kept the Company as a Private one, not organised an IPO for a Public company to raise much of the initial funding - and risks. At the moment, it feels that the family tail is wagging the PI dog. As for Peel.......
If we have to depend on other countries to set up the FOAK, what a disgrace that will be for the UK. GLA
Dr A
I suspect that Peel will not be able to operate the recycling plants on Protos until ours is operational. Otherwise they will be paying for waste to be carted off. So it's in Peel's interest to get our site completed as soon as possible, and the plant running.
Their representative, Ian Crockford, is contractually responsible for getting the buildings put up, and will shortly know when that should be. But Powerhouse will be responsible for then building, running and testing the machinery. Ian Crockford won't know when that will be. That will come from Powerhouse engineers.
it wouldn't surprise me if the building is ready by Q2 2022, and that Peel has allowed for the whole site to be running by 2023, including our plant. All machinery in all the buildings will have to be operational for the site to work. It's possible, that as part of the commissioning of our plant, that waste plastic will be brought in. This would be sufficient to test it and show it to potential buyers. That could be before the whole site is operational. So lots of dates and planning for Tim to give us
Hi Dr A.
I fully understand that, but this does change a lot of things I feel. Firstly it losses confidence. Tim literally mic dropped a bombshell without so much as an explanation.
Im a long term holder and normally very positive but this delay means another raise might be needed to. Not saying it will happen but it opens the doors to it.
The rep of PHE gets damaged and with it our future returns. In addition every delay is another chance for someone else to fill the gap first.
For me Tim has to go, his time is up. He has failed.
That is the pressure we as shareholders should be adding to the BOD.
Anything other than Tim stepping down isnt going to change that.
Does it mean I dont like the product? No I love it, but as our leader he has failed us.
Bang on Dave.