Member Info for 4Corners

We should tag together and buy up the entire company (or the available freefloat), reddit style.....entire biz is less than $30m at current prices, and max 20% free float available to buy . Wrong forum I guess :)

@ AA2020 - I am not so sure about that argument - the new board has been in for 2 months now and they had started negotiations since then. Just the fact that they are all SF/Man Cap proxies makes it difficult to trust that their moves are in the interest of all shareholders - of course, I am so waiting for them to prove otherwise

Well, there is a sell off on no news as well....wondering whats taking so long when they said "few weeks"....looks like someone interpreted it as "no news is bad news" and decided to offload or reduce

And some slam dunking today....

They really enjoy driving to the edge it seems....11 days to go
Turnaround for sure, but been a huge opportunity cost so far if you invested 12months ago....or at any time for that matter :)

Yes they do have the 31 Jan deadline (though it could get pushed by mutual agreement, as they did on the last one)
Also interesting will be their 2021 EBITDA guidance - hopefully $70m+, giving them room to reduce debt through internal cashflow generation

Those 3 are supposedly independent, but were all proposed by SF/Man Capital. The 4th one is Heikal who was elected towards end of November - he is the chairman of SF.

There are 4 directors, out of which 1 (Heikal) is a SF rep. Are you saying the other 3 are (direct) reps of Man Cap? :)

Don't know if they are in a no-trade period - they have been on the board for more than 2 months now - so been some time. Completely agree with you on CEO/BOD having some holding, especially when prices are this low (if not now, then when!) - that is why I am surprised, and not insecurity!

Not really surprised that it hasn't moved - no clarity (yet) on how the cap structure discussion will evolve, and what the profitabilith will be this year.

What is surprising though is that none of the new board members have bought a single share at these prices. Not even 100,000 shares which would cost them 6,000 pounds! Either they are stingy, or do not believe in the story (i.e. they know something negative), or know something material and positive.....

Definitely not 85% - maybe 15%. Three investors themselves own 50%.

"Shot up to 22p".... :)
Those were negotiated trades

@AA2020 - check this one out - https://www.reuters.com/article/shuaa-stanford-marine-restructuring-int/uaes-shuaa-capital-buys-out-stanford-marines-debt-as-part-of-restructuring-idUSKBN29F071

This one has been in trouble since 2018, with the parent company itself bankrupt. Looks like banks had taken over the company previously

Houston, we have a "balance sheet" issue.

Correction on 1: "without" the need for significant dilution

As expected, no share price movement from the last RNS. In my humble view, share price gains will be driven by:
1. Clarity on the debt deal when announced, and it shows progress with the need for significant dilution and/or gives a better time frame
2. Boost in utilization rates, that translates into solid EBITDA growth, and at least net profit breakeven. Anything north of $70m is interesting
3. Measures to strengthen the balance sheet, again without significant dilution. So ideally a placement to strategic investor at a higher price (the argument that they can buy it cheaper in the 'market' is invalid, unless of course they make a bid for everything, which is also positive)
4. Lastly, a bid from someone other than SF
Given how illiquid the stock is, even in scenarios 1-3, sustained elevated price is not a given. This stock is almost a private equity type stock with an exit through a trade sale. And to that extent, its not really in the interest of SF to let the price go up either, atleast till June, when they are not bound by the 22p price if they intend to make a full bid.

Agreed that it rules out the worst case scenario for now, and shows good faith on part of the board/SF. Lets hope they negotiate a much better deal
On the share price movement, obviously its the holidays. But also its still not clear what the terms are, although looks positive just the fact that they are negotiating. Also given how illiquid it is, it needs a very strong trigger. Not many are willing to sell at current prices, or even double, and not many willing to bid higher given the unknowns.

Seems like rough negotiations, and basically confirms my thoughts on how this new board could do something much better than the previous board on this debt issue. Yet, its positive that the banks have agreed to give them time
Not clear on what they mean by warrants to be issued by 4 Jan.....AA2020??

Looks like the boys on the board are in holiday mood and not interested in disclosing anything this year.

I understood that it was some form of 'sweetener' in lieu of not getting paid $75m early (and thus punitive on GMS equity holders). They also mention that once the warrants are issued, and somehow GMS manages to repay $100m, then the warrants don't get exercised. So the 20% dilution was for nothing in return, but it really didn't add much to the banks unless marketcap was $100m+. Obviously would have been fab if 20% dilution was for $75m - why would investors not vote for it when the mcap is at sub $50m!

SF was not willing to get diluted through: 1. rights issue (as they get diluted further, especially if equity is placed to a strategic investor), or 2. warrants issue. This explains their additional 9% purchase in June and changing the board. It is also clear they are not willing to buyout everyone at 22p (since no bids post the end of the no-bid period). So now the question is: what is SF going to do to create value for them? Will it be at the expense of minority? That is my only concern.