We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
My understanding is that the lawyers can say what they like (within the law) but they can't do anything. The adjudicators can take as long as they choose. It may suit them to choose to take a very long time. Longer than the BOD could claim Rockhopper is solvent.
When I said ceased to trade I meant as a result of insolvency. My question wasn't whether in that scenario there would be anything left for the shareholders, but whether it would get the arbitrators off the hook regarding making a decision that either way would be controversial.
People usually choose the path of least resistance. Is it the case that for the arbitrators, no more Rockhopper = no more problem? If so, the logical thing for them to do is nothing and wait for insolvency.
If Rockhopper ceased trading before the judgement, would the claim die with it or would the arbitration funder still be able to pursue it? If the former, this would leave the arbitration panel with a relatively painless way to avoid settings a precedent.
This comment, on another share which, barring a rapid and spectacular court win, looks likely to be finally put out of its misery, seems very apposite to our current BOD:
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=RKH&share=Rockhopper&thread=A6A26CAF-45A6-4E3E-A4F3-C4005F37E523
Found this on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/agronomics/comments/qmfbdt/information_on_new_agrarian_company_limited/
"The Board believes that the establishment of New Agrarian is a positive development for the Company as the combined capital bases of the two entities will facilitate leading larger funding rounds and provide the ability to negotiate improved lead investor terms. Agronomics alone would have been unable to achieve these due to size limitations. By acting together, the combined entities will be able to set terms and secure preferred allocations in the highly competitive funding round environment."
Short term it's clearly not a good development since it increases supply of similar securities without increasing demand by the same amount. Long term, we always knew that further funds would be required to fuel new investments. Given that this isn't diluting existing ANIC shareholders, and so long as there isn't any hidden "mates' deal" to give shareholders in the new entity preferential terms on investments, it shouldn't make much difference.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-british-tobacco-stocks-worlds-shunned-investments/
Behind a paywall. In summary saying no risk of dividend cut, cheap because so many institutions cannot buy because of ESG mandate. Once it has the debt down, which is well in progress, will start share buybacks which will improve price. In the meantime collect the dividends..
Questor says it's a combination of the perceived risk of the Government decided to break housing benefit’s index-linking , which would impact housing associations ability to honour their index linked contracts with Triple Point, and the fact that Civitas. in the same business, is currently under short attack. They take the view that inflation won't get so bad that the former is worth the political pain and that the later will pass. i.e. Keep calm and carry on.
I'm inclined to agree and have therefore opened a position (with the proceeds of selling what I believe was a higher risk security). Please be aware. however, that my market timing is usually terrible.
As always DYOR.
httpS://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-boring-stable-trust-has-lost-17pc-value-time-re-assess/
Even byproducts aren't free to extract and may not contribute much, or anything, to the overall profitability if in very low concentrations.
I'm hoping I'm wrong. If the tin price holds up they're mostly icing on the cake. However I'm used used to being disappointed and not banking on fireworks at this stage.
Unless the news is that there's no enough lithium or tantalum to be economically viable. Not a deramp; this is one of my larger holdings. But do remember this is AIM and too soon to count your chickens. [ As I've just been reminded today on EEE :( ]
Isn't this all hypothetical. Surely if a substantial amount was awarded the Italian government would just ignore the law in a specific and limited way. The Guardian may have a touching belief in international law, but they don't have to win elections.
httpS://stockhead.com.au/health/cannabis-stocks-celebrate-pershing-ownership-change/
Mentions Little Green Pharma (ASX:LGP) as a possible beneficiary.
Not totally unserious, unfortunately. BMN have got some extremely valuable assets but far too much debt. frequently misses targets and fails to make much money. Hence the low share price. This makes it a takeover target. (Or, worse case, a fire sale by its creditors.) A new owner may not share the same strategic vision. Given the importance of the Bushveld partnership to Invinity's business model, this has got to represent a serious risk.
httpS://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/questor-trust-has-doubled-year-shares-not-pricey-seem/
Essentially saying the effective premium is far smaller than the headline number.
There's also the Pictet Nutrition fund operating in the future food/agritech space, although no synthetic meat investments. They were featured in the latest Moneyweek podcast. httpS://moneyweek.com/economy/global-economy/603324/mayssa-al-midani-agritech-nutrition-and-climate-change