The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
if the first resolution is no, the second resolution is to vote on taking Sirius into a private company, what could that mean
Longtermview, I have not decided which way to vote yet and still have plenty of time to make my mind up. One of the issues I am trying to understand is if the vote was to turn down the offer why would anyone increase the offer as if it goes into administration surely the price it will be saved for will be a lot less with shares becoming worthless. This is a genuine question and would love the answer to be that I have got it wrong. Many thanks for any help, GLA
-- -----
Westcountry, IMO, if the vote is no then some of the big institutional investors - who could easily afford to provode financing - might step in. In particular those holding the bonds. The vakue of the bonds is preserved if the company s sold to AAL because AAL has a strong balance sheet and the likelihood of the bonds being repaid is high so they wont lose. In administration it's not just shareholders that get wiped out, bondholders do too. QIA hold more than $100 million worth of bonds. I just don't see them kissing them goodbye in addition to the $40 odd million they invested in equity shares.
Franalex Thomas Cook and Debenhams were operating businesses and their problems are poles apart from Sirius. To try and lump them together is disingenuous. Sirius has a string business model in place in the form of demand and TORPS for its product. It is not an operating company. Just needs a few quid and a shovel or two to dig it out then we're in business
to have a vote in court you must have a share certificate and not have your shares in a nominee account
What you need to do is as follows,
1) Ask your broker or whoever holds your shares in their nominee account to take one share out of your account and issue you with a share certificate. You will need your IVC number to arrange for a proxy vote that can be used in court. (I think IVC means Individual Investor Code for the share)
2) the Registrar for the company is Link Asset Services https://www.linkassetservices.com/shareholders-and-investors/shareholder-services-uk Contact them and ask them for the proxy vote paperwork. It should take less than 24 hours for them to have your IVC number if they don’t just call them again until they do. Do not wait to receive the certificate in the post to get your IVC number phone them later on in the day or 9am the next morning and ask them for the proxy vote paperwork. Be persistent and make sure it is done properly
3) find someone who is going to the court, and you can trust and ask them to vote on your behalf.
4) You will have to send to the proxy an original letter giving them the right to vote on your behalf. Send Royal Mail Special Delivery or First class Signed for. They will have to take it to the court to prove they have the right to vote on your behalf.
You now act and count as one vote in the court proceedings.
Perhaps you should contact ShareSoc to find out if there is a trustworthy person who can vote on your behalf. Remember your individual vote counts, if you have a share certificate.
Time is of the essence so act now
Franalex, investing, NO, and i can read a person out very quick, and i don't like what i'm reading
Tuckup, I have posted on others. What you cannot eradicate from your mind is experience both as a Director of large businesses and an investor. Believe me, I have made mistakes in both but some of the comments I see on here and indeed on both Thomas Cook and Debenhams suggest individuals either have or are about to make mistakes I made 30 years ago.
take the money and run, before this becomes another afren. move on .
Longtermview, I have not decided which way to vote yet and still have plenty of time to make my mind up. One of the issues I am trying to understand is if the vote was to turn down the offer why would anyone increase the offer as if it goes into administration surely the price it will be saved for will be a lot less with shares becoming worthless. This is a genuine question and would love the answer to be that I have got it wrong. Many thanks for any help, GLA
TCU I’m voting no , can you tell me why? Are you invested in SXX?
Gertfrobe: TCU if you don’t like it filter him .
I appreciate how the filter works but think the point I made (and the one Franalex made) is one worth making. There are clearly inexperienced investors who visit this BB and there is a danger that they may ascribe certain posters' views/opinions more truth simply because they are being repeated incessantly. Everyone needs to analyse the source and content of information being posted here, whether it's from a poster with a 1,000 posts or one with only a handful.
Franalex,
you have been posting on the same boards as bettabuck, and all your post are all doom and gloom,
ask your mother for a few happy tablets. and don't forget to vote NO.
TCU if you don’t like it filter him .
My previous comment was referencing Longtermview24's response to Franalex at 17:03.
I bought 3 businesses out of administration and am fully aware of the process and rankings. I am also aware that it is the role of the administrator to check the validity of all security and claims and deal with appropriately. Equally I am aware that in the administration of a significant PLC a few years ago, one of the major banks believed it had £30m of its debt fully secured but the security turned out to be invalid. Nothing can be taken for granted. You practical experience is?
That's unfounded and unreasonable. We shouldn't be affording anyone's views or opinions more weight simply because they are being repeated ad nauseum. Everyone should start employing some critical thinking to everything that is posted on this BB, whichever way they are intending to vote.
Mining and risk should be the word , we had a party when my pit closed. I only thought mines could destroy lives when they were open.
Franalex - Han**** British Holding Limited are a secured creditor. Let me explain what a secured creditor is. "A secured creditor is any creditor or lender associated with an investment in or issuance of a credit product backed by collateral. Secured creditors have a first-order claim on the payouts of a distressed credit investment." Here it is in black and white. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07251600/charges/LMjAK_bdOn2hlPcj8rCt-OJPdNI
We have also got it that you have a different view and post incessantly on it. Time will tell who is right but I clearly have the ability to be more objective than you having much less emotional attachment to an equity investment which always carries risk,
Franalex, I think everyone has got it by now. You're in love with IBAB and administration is a bad thing for shareholders.
On the flip side the AAL bid is a steal and an improved bid or - better still - funding, is good for shareholders.
Pretty simple really.
www.fundsirius.com
Vote NO
In the event of an administration all the negotiations will be with the administrator. All contracts with the previous business effectively terminate and it is down to the administrator to see what can be salvaged and does not have to pay any of the previous liabilities. The rights to proceeds from the administration are laid down in law depending on whether they are secured preferential or ordinary. If the administrator does not have funding to keep the business going then they will liquidate it which frankly would be a disaster for everyone.
Franalex - let's explore this further because you can bet Odey has. British Han**** Holdings are the secured creditors of York Potash Limited, the company Chris Fraser reversed into Sirius Minerals. At the time he did so they owned the mineral rights required to extract the polyhalite, hence the reason Fraser got the money her did for it. So my guess is that Gina Rinehart secured her debt against York Potash Ltd for that reason. If the company goes into receivership not only does Fraser lose his £6.8m but Anglo American will be left negotiating those rights with the person that they would least like to have to do so with. And in Anglo's words - it's a Tier 1 resource. So on that basis my guess is that Odey is calculating that they will be prepared to pay a little more for it.
During negotiations I have regularly heard sellers claim our offer undervalued their business because of the number of years of their life they had invested and how much they had spent on investments. If a business does not have enough cash to continue then that is all totally irrelevant and it is worth what someone is prepared to pay. In this instance, so far the only offer is AAL. I am surprised that others have not come to the table but they know the industry better than me, and will have reasons, equally, I did think AAL might increase the offer slightly but as time goes by then that looks less likely. One thing that is almost certain is that in an administration, shareholders will get nothing.
Franalex:
I firmly believe that their pitiful offer is simply a hopeful attempt to make a killing. How much has already been spent ? A billion, 1.5 billion. How much is left in the bank ? To get that for 400 million. They would laugh their socks at the stupidity of the shareholders. They will up their offer. If it it goes into administration and Fraser loses his 124 million shares so be it. Sometimes you need balls and this is one of them.
phimx, you are certainly giving them away for nothing if the consequence is an administration.
GET YOUR PROXIES IN - ITS EASY - otherwise you are giving your shares away for nothing.