Member Info for 4Corners

@ GruffJ, not to temper your enthusiasm, it also means someone has sold as much as they can :)

Seems like off the market trades don't have to be reported at all. So there were possibly other undisclosed off-book trades in recent past, which probably explains the fact that 60% of shareholders voted for SF resolutions (unless of course SF convinced more people to vote for their proposals)

They can not make any bid for 6months, and after that can not bid for under 22 till June 2021 since thats the highest price they paid

I don't think SF can make a bid below 22p, but someone else can

Thought that SF and friends were only 49pct of the company, but the votes today for the new board was 60pct of the shares! Did SF convince more institutional shareholders or do they have more than what they report? If its the former, maybe a deal cooking?

I like how GMS is in a privileged position of being able to announce results of a general meeting the day before the vote :)
Some decent selling pressure today following the Friday bounce.....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-03/billionaire-has-no-regrets-about-pulling-his-money-out-of-banks

Article on the Man Capital guy, the guys behind SF. Seems more like a PR type article

Administration vs. Massive dilution, one would think there is 26pct shareholding (i know atleast 10pct) who know that SF has more to lose from an administration, and could demand better terms. This is a complicated one

It would also mean Mazroui and Horizon injecting capital of $15m to maintain their % which I am not sure they want to do. They can ofcourse inject capital at a higher valuation (i.e. less dilutive terms for e.g. at 22p) and making it easier for anyone to maintain same ownership levels.

Not sure how they could raise 75m from anyone without a shareholder approval. However, if you remember, one of the agenda at the AGM was to give the board the power to raise capital without getting shareholder approval. Perhaps they will go this route once the new board is in.

Also this assumes that Mazrui and Horizon (who have been voting with SF and are roughly 20%) will benefit elsewhere with SF to the tune of 22p/share (if they are not dumb, they would have asked for more). So that leaves screwing the remaining 50% of shareholders to drive the company into bankruptcy to pick up assets on the cheap that you are not sure of? Possible, but odds are low

Along with what AA2020 pointed out, the other options are:
1. Renegotiate with banks to avert bankruptcy (banks already said no, but that will always be their stand) . In this case, frustrate existing shareholders and they come back and bid at lower price in June 2021. In this case, you should also assume that nobody else would come and bid for the asset at a higher price before that :)
2. Reverse merger with SF creating a stronger company (why wasn't this presented to the board already?)
3. Buy out remaining shareholders at 22p
4. Capital raise from SF at dilutive valuation (again they have to compensate/pay Mazrui and Horizon elsewhere)
5. Hope and pray that ADQ crashes this party

If you know the outcome, you will either sell down completely, or load it up to the hilt

27th or 28th November I think

50.2% of outstanding shares voted against the warrants. Next one on board changes is on the 10 November.
Will they call another General meeting to reinstate Heikal onto the board? SF is keeping board/management busy by calling general meetings :)

Agreed that it was the SF shake up in 2019 that lead to the mgmt changes - I did vote for them last year to get them on the board.

However, their moves this year have been nothing short of hostile, opportunistic and predatory, and intended to cause 'disturbance' as you rightly said. If they can add value, they haven't made it clear it will be for the benefit of everyone. Rather, they are keen on snapping up GMS or its assets on the cheap to add value at SF.

Will be interesting vote on 10 Nov. Mazroui & Horizon hold the trump card

@AA2020 - any thoughts on why the 2 Seafox reps resigned from the board?

Just wanted to correct on HH's "significant shareholder" - I misread that one. He is not a significant shareholder, so we won't have the Sokol scenario

Your scary scenarios freaked out someone and he/she slammed it 7% :)

Yes, Man Capital seems like the main shareholder, and most likely Qatari/GCC investors too. Their board rep Hisham Halbouny also appears to be a "significant shareholder" in GMS personally (as per GMS bio); let's hope its a case of David Sokol/Lubrizol/Buffett.

SF is a Netherlands company.....surprised you haven't thought of www.kvk.nl since you seem to know lot already. Costs about 50 shares in GMS to buy a document - I'd rather buy the shares than learn about SF. The Man of Isles also has similar registry in case your research leads you there. If you find something, please do share your knowledge along with the scary scenarios

Seafox has made it abundantly clear through their actions that they want to create some sort of value for Seafox at the expense of the 70% owners of GMS. Just so that we are clear, I don't think its Seafox in the driving seat; it is Man Capital, which is a PE style Egyptian family office in the UK. Perhaps there is some backing from Qatar, as Seafox debt is financed by Qatar Islamic Bank. Seafox/Man Capital doesn't have to clarify anything - as PE investors they are looking out for their own interests, and unfortunately they may not be breaching any regulation.

@AA2020 - you continue to point out scary scenarios. At 1pence a share, I bet there are other interested parties. Hell even i am tempted and we could even convince @mcent to top up on his 700k shares :). Is this scenario possible without a new board, which needs Horizon and Mazroui voting in line with SF (which possibly makes the case for 'acting in concert')? And assuming there is no 'side agreement' between the three, Horizon and Mazroui would be losing out if this happens. Alternately, why not let the current board do a rights issue at whatever price, and SF can underwrite the issue and increase ownership without triggering an MTO and retain control?

Looks like you know: 1.SF's capital structure, and 2. that its better than GMS :)

So that is going to be a meaningless GM as of now, but never know if the glorified dealmakers at SF change their mind last minute like how they did after they resigned from the board :)

@ AA2020 - there are other options too, like a merger with SF for example or a capital injection by SF to own a bigger stake. SF in their first bid in 2019 did not want to buy out the entire business. I am not convinced they have the willingness AND ability to pull off a bid at a higher price.

@jadpi - very much possible :)
SF votes against the warrants, pushing GMS to default and banks take ownership of the vessels. SF approaches banks with $400m (they could possibly put in $75m equity and refi the $325m). They would have spent the same amount of money as a 22p bid, but end up with lower debt.
I am guessing that is what this article is about - https://www.sharesoc.org/blog/education/lessons-from-a-failed-investment/ (I don't have access)