Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. 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.
Granted I could ask what other board members have contributed too…. But the finance people have been shown the door… maybe/probably for underachieving, I can only speculate….. so how is Twigger still around?
Red, can you explain what Twigger does for us exactly? I genuinely have no idea what he contributes… what he has achieved over the last 3-4 years?
Id have him out in December
Evening Lunch :-).
Yesterday's Financial Review (oz) suggested that Solg is next in line for a buy-out............
Agreed, it would have taken a 5 minute phone call to BHP and NCm regarding royalty tap and to share thoughts on how they might be able to find a halfway house on the Franco style deal vs equity placing. Perhaps they went with $75m placing and $75m royalty tap and it got the nod only for someone at the last minute... prob BHP to say nope... we don't want to do that or it might have been Boliden saying... nope we are not going to allow a full buy back of the royalty and want to retain 0.5% no matter what. People forget that there are potentially 4 parties involved here, possible more. You have Franco, Boliden, BHP, NCM and Mathers crew... DGR, CGP and tenstar? The latter might not be included.
All want a slice of the cake... some want others to not have slice at all. Some want nothing to do with it. Some want it all.
At end of the day... it's fair for the CEO to say we 'tested' the market/shareholders and we didn't get a consensus. Call it failure or call it a reason to return to the table to discuss more options. No rush... there's a decent 4 months of cash left.
LunchMoney I accept the 10% figure that you put up, unsure why Solgold included this.
This is the annualized figure.
NCM and BHP can't vote against it if Solgold don't include it next year. Then the default is 20%.
I think the interesting point is NM.
As someone said if he was voted off as a NED.
He could do a deal between Tenstar, DGR and himself and get reappointed as a director under the 10% rule.
So I don't see NM going anywhere.
There is no capital markets experience whatsoever in DC's CV...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/darryl-cuzzubbo-850775b6/details/experience/
However, Twigger is still MD of PCF Capital Partners....
"Over 25 years’ experience in investment banking and corporate finance including the establishment of Macquarie Bank’s Bullion and Commodities division in Perth in 1995.
Previously Head of Macquarie Bank’s and then Bankers Trust’s investment banking in Western Australia.
As founder of PCF in 1999, Liam oversees all of PCF’s businesses and is actively involved in corporate finance and advisory mandates."
The truth is Quads that none of us know what's happening in the background (apart from a lot of P45's being issued!).
It does get my goat when it is suggested that Cuzzubbo is doing a hash of a job, when for all we know he could be setting up a fantastic sale, which will enrich us all.
Damers.
Damers stop believing the untruths here.
No deal was submitted, so it cannot have failed.
We had conversations on the structure of a deal and although not named, it was BHP and NCM that disagreed.
We don't know what the proposal was as we never went ahead. ( so no deal even attempted ).
We are currently putting together another structure and I will guess it will be something that doesn't require shareholder approval.
Let's see what happens.
Probably Orthern, if so he will show his true colours as he is so unintellent.
But agree as a strange first post to come on the Solgold forum and not talk about Solgold.
Slug?
Now thats a sensible post from a new poster...
Quinty...(5)...Quady... (4)...Hmm too much of a coincidence...?
Speaking on the sidelines of Kalgoorlie’s annual Diggers and Dealers conference on Wednesday, Mr Cuzzubbo confirmed the company had “tested the market” on a raising, but had not gone ahead amid tension between shareholder groups over the structure.
Submitted by one of the best posters on this forum.
Well DBW are you accusing Pinotnoir of being dumb enough to believe it.
You constantly debase this forum with your half truths and misrepresent fact.
It is enough that your Slugs friend ( although you are trying to rewrite history and deny it now ), but you really are low in your constant attacks on me.
The rationale amongst many on this BB over the last few days is odd.
There seems to be a consensus that...........
- The management team set up a finance deal of sorts.
- They did not know / realise that this deal would upset a percentage of the major share holders
- As a result the disgruntled share holders, the deal failed and Ingo was made the fall guy.
Do you seriously not think that the likes of Cuzzubbo, Twigger & Mather (and their advisors) could not of foreseen such an outcome??
Bizarre to say the least - have you lot got sun stroke?
Reminds me....
"‘Q’ was Spike Milligan’s surreal TV comedy sketch show..."
https://www.britishclassiccomedy.co.uk/spike-milligan-q
RK
51
"Testing the market..."
Does he think we are dumb?
Well someone was dumb enough to believe it … take a wild guess ??
Copper recovering despite a shocking Empire State survey of -31...yes MINUS against an expected +5...
"Testing the market..."
Does he think we are dumb?
"The use of this financing structure is intended as a one-off."
No wonder BHP and NCM didn't want it...
Can you trust any statements by this company...?
LunchMoney it's not like you to misrepresent what I have said. That's the job of addicknt, Redknight and DBW.
I was stating what the regulations are and what we can do.
It makes no difference what has been agreed.
For example if nothing is agreed next AGM then it's 20%.
It's on an annualized basis.
I just posted this to try to stop all the rubbish about Solgold can't raise money and BHP are calling the shots.
This is just one way we can raise cash without shareholder approval, there are others.
We Solgold investors are in charge of our own destiny, not BHP or anyone else.
My reading of it is that the company can *technically* issue any amount via this structure, but the 20% limit is the threshold at which a main market listed company needs to produce a prospectus, which is time consuming and costly. Therefore such offers tend to be restricted to less than 20% to avoid the prospectus requirement.
I think the 10% (5+5) is the recommended limit for displaying pre-emption rights under the PEG principles. Solg has committed to adhering to these principles, so in the previous cashbox they limited themselves to 10%.
" The Placing structure has been chosen because of its flexibility, reduced timeframe to completion and to minimise the price risk to participants. As a result of the withdrawal of the standard disapplication of pre-emption resolutions following limited shareholder support for the same at the Company's AGM in 2020, the directors of the Company consider the use of a cashbox structure to be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders as a whole, particularly when combined with the Retail Offer which allows smaller shareholders to participate in the Placing. The Directors have reached this decision in this particular circumstance and after consulting with and taking into account the views or concerns of certain shareholders and receiving external advice. The Company plans to adhere to the Pre-Emption Group Statement of Principles (the "Principles") in respect of the combined size of the Placing and the Retail Offer, limiting the issuance to a maximum of 10% of the Company's existing issued share capital (5% unrestricted + 5% related to specified capital investments). In addition, the Company has taken into account certain other provisions of the Principles in implementing the Placing, in particular as regards prior consultation with shareholders, that the Placing is being undertaken on a soft pre-emptive basis and that the Company's management will be involved in the allocation process. As noted above, the Company has also given consideration to the effect of the Placing on retail shareholders and will enable them to take part in the issuance of new shares by way of the Retail Offer. The use of this financing structure is intended as a one-off."
Note the last sentence! As I have always said, the use of the cash box last time was done with the major holders onside and participating, in a soft pre-emptive manner. I don't think the company can just keep on using it to bypass pre-emption rights if major holders aren't onside, as they would all kick off. Which is exactly what that latest article says, it wasn't seen as appropriate by shareholders, so didn't go ahead.
aye 2.3b share in issue
10% = 230m
placing @ e.g. 25p
=£57.5m
@20p = £46m
Quite right, LM. 10% should be more than enough to get us to the next stage...hopefully!
Have a lovely evening folks...
°¿°
LunchMoney
No - Quady isn't incorrect. The 20% limit is a general blanket limit, but it's possible for companies to have a tighter limit than that if it's in it's s constitution or agreed by shareholders.
SOLG does have that tighter limit.
It is 5 (+5 contingent on some form of capital allocation). It's probably one of those where the company would seek to justify the 10% and everyone else up in arms.