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.
Spot on LL......................"".FalseDawn: I do not agree that the CEO should resign, and I believe that ALL the other Board Members were happy with the deal. So Should the whole board resign?"
And yes Vulpes position becomes untenable. I too am sitting tight waiting for the next move. Nice to be wanted isn"t it?"
And yes, I have also considered that those sitting on low priced options might also take up their shares, thus ensuring that the next round goes through.
RR, I agree with C7, that Vulpes' position will untenable - in my case this is regardless of the outcome. To me, they have already shown bad faith by selling so they could gain more shares at a cheaper price.
I don't know if the CLNs can have their term extended (other companies have issued perpetual loan notes at higher interest rates than the ones offered this round).
One of my most likely scenarios is that the next move on failure this time is that Redmile will convert their existing opportunities, thus getting the next raising through.
Other scenarios take account that if they felt like moving the market they could then sink the price and gobble up those who sell the dip.
FalseDawn: I do not agree that the CEO should resign, and I believe that ALL the other Board Members were happy with the deal. So Should the whole board resign?
“What a mess” - indeed.
As a shareholder I do not have at this moment in time enough information to cast an informed vote (a bit like Brexit).
Surely, as a number suggested yesterday, this vote needs to be postponed until after the AGM where the Redmile case can be presented and shareholders have the opportunity to pose questions.
The thing I haven’t quite worked out is whether the Vulpes block is for the benefit of Vulpes or whether it is for the benefit of smaller shareholders in general.
If the vote does go ahead on the 3rd November I urge all to consider the case for and against.
It doesn’t sit well with me. It’s a bit like the case for a second referendum - keep going until you get the result you want. In a general election you can’t call for another simply because your party had a poor turnout.
In any case, if the PI vote is split 50/50, the proposal will not be carried.
Indeed it will be. I think regardless of the vote Vulpes will be in an untenable situation as to having a seat on the Board and general trust in the company. I think as a result of that there stake becomes more valuable for Redmile to remove them and I don"t believe Redmile walked into this blindly.
It is going to be a very tight vote....
Ray
You are correct if none of the no votes swap sides the maximum yes vote will be just over 81.5%. We know there are shareholders that can't vote held overseas and those held in nominee accounts that are not even aware of the vote as they have not looked in to their Corporate Actions. As rough guide I estimate for every 1 vote against you will need 4 votes for. With a minimum of around 110m extra votes being cast to make up the estimated 5% current shortfall and cover for any extra no votes. It will be very close IMO. What a mess.
Sorry that should be 82.3% - just checking you're all awake :-)
Was there a max time the adjournement could be arranged for?
We know that between 70 and 75 percent of shareholders voted yes. We don't know the exact figure.
All we know is that more than 75% of extra votes will be needed to carry the vote.
And we also don't know how many more people will vote.
So its not an exact equation.
One example is 70% voted yes and the missing 41% all vote and all vote yes
This would give 41.3% (70% of 59%) + 41% = 81.3%
There are of course many other numerous examples
Thanks mia, I see now.
Moonparty - in my example 2 additional lots of 10 apples (i.e. 10% of total apples) are needed to go from 70 / 30 to 75 / 25.
False, a situation that could well arise with Redmile in the drivers seat.
I can only imagine nobody thought Vulpes would react in this matter, this is not the first time Redmile have been in this situation
Indeed Falsedawn I fully agree. An additional 85m million (or thereabouts) are needed if there are no additional 'against' votes.
Mia
The more votes cast the higher the number required to get above 75%. If 600m vote you would need over 450m in favour. This for me is why this is not a done deal for every vote against drives up the number that must vote for. Like it or not there will be people who will now add to the vote against this.
For me the Chairman should be held to account how can you seriously go into such a serious vote not knowing you will get this through. The Chairman of the BOD should resign or be replaced with serious questions over the CEO. IMO
But 10 apples in this case is 5% of 200 (apples in issue). I don't understand your point.
Remember, the 'for' side needs more than an additional five percent 5% of shares issues in order to get to a 75 / 25 position.
Imagine there are 200 apples.
I have 70 of them and you have 30 (100 are still in the basket). We have a 70 / 30 split in our positions.
If I take 10 more (5% of the total) I have 80 and you have 30. In percent terms this is 72.7% to 27.3%.
To get to 75% vs 25% I need to take a further 10 apples from the basket so that I have 90. This means I have taken 20 additional apples from the basket (10% of the total apples)
Thanks False, well I know of three people holding 15m shares to add to that for vote and that is for starters.
Hi katnick
by my reckoning from the RNS:-
Votes representing 435m shares had been cast before the AGM (59% of issued shares)
Votes against were approx 130m (30% of 435m)
Votes for were 305m (70% of 435m)
To get to a 75% position for the motion the for side needs 390m votes (i.e. 3 x the against side who have 130m)
This means 85m additional for votes must be obtained.
Kat. around 37m shares plus the same amount of those who vote against or have already voted and changed their mind. There is 41% of shares that have not or can't vote as of the first ballot.
Not too many Kat, a couple of posters posted on that yesterday, I believe we had 70% for but needed 75%, with many PIs to vote. Get that vote in and sure someone will come up with the maths.
Does anyone know how many extra yes votes/ shares are needed to get this passed?