Member Info for bluerill

Yes, the deal is/was a share swap of sorts, although SLE will sell the Palantir for cash and then presumably deliver SLE shares in exchange (price of course still tbd, which will be the next big piece of news to come eventually) precisely as I laid out several times. However, the shares still have to be transferred to San Leon's account so they can be sold and this injunction does not guarantee they will be. Perhaps the injunction will trigger TRAM's settlement agent to release the shares right away without even conferring with their client, but I very much doubt that, so surely the next step will be for SLE to try and use the court decision to compel TRAM to transfer the shares or more likely, to re-open discussions with TRAM and convince them that resistance is ultimately futile and thus persuade them to transfer the shares willingly.

Well, I'm confident it is as well, redeye, but it wouldn't have been a silly exercise even if it wasn't clearly, directly enforceable, since a temporary injunction is always likely to act as an incentive to get TRAM to capitulate voluntarily, and that's got to be the Company's ultimate goal, not a court-enforced settlement.

That's certainly some good news, redeye, thanks for posting. Now I'm guessing the question is if this Irish injunction is enforceable in the US/Canada in order to be able to compel, or at perhaps 'aggressively persuade', TRAM or its agent to release the securities. Yet to be seen of course. Regardless, for the moment anyway, at least we can celebrate a win for the good guys.

Again with the nerve struck nonsense, followed by blather. I never wrote sle had an 'ironclad' case or claimed in any way it was 'open and shut', just that the case predicates and the.comments from the parties so far clearly favoured San Leon.

That's the problem with providing reasoned, well-presented and evidence-supported arguments and informed speculation on these god-forsaken message boards: you inevitably end up wasting your effort with a fumbling idiot who can't bring himself to acknowledge factual errors and/or the fact that he's the one making unfounded assertions, often can't even be bothered to read the article in question properly, nor in fact what I wrote in response, but instead just sputters bon mots like "...As for the legal side—well, we both know cases aren’t just “tossed out from the jump” without due process, and if contracts were as ironclad as you claim, there wouldn’t be ongoing disputes over terms, shifting obligations, and last-minute changes to asset portfolios...." The first part of that is just patently untrue and the latter is just total gibberish. The fact that at some point TRAM asked to change the composition of the assets from a portfolio to a single company's shares is just a footnote to the story, likely included only for completenesses sake. What's genuinely important is that the 2 parties seem to have had a contract to exchange 50m worth of securities - one or multiple different shares, it ultimately DOES NOT MATTER - and for whatever reason, good or ill, the judge will decide - San Leon has sued for breach of that agreement.

As for your sudden injection of a bunch of questions at the end of your post that have sweet fa to do with the lawsuit, nice try at deflection, but I'll address them as best I can anyway: 1. show me the evidence that the bond has 'disappeared'. It still seems very much assigned to a San Leon entity as far as I can tell, though the Company has clearly still not consummated a deal with it. So if I'm right and TRAM approached SLE as appears most likely, one would assume that any quantum SLE raises through equity would reduce the amount they would necessarily need to raise from the bond. 2. San Leon has been suspended and is now de-listed, and has been trying to raise a ton of dough unsuccessfully for a pretty considerable period of time, while precious little is coming in the door in the meantime. With that backdrop, is it really that shocking that the CFO has had to go/was pushed? Hardly 'News at 10'-worthy stuff. What shareholders have relied on to date, and continue to pin their hopes on, is the continued support of the super-majority shareholder, the value of the sle's current and future assets, and OF's hard graft to get a deal done. Nothing's really changed there. 3. Delays are never good news, but I wonder how many multi-centamillion deals you've converted in your life? Me either, but I'll venture they always take longer than anyone planned or ho

Way to go there, was-once-37k-but-lost-200-for-being-a-total-dooshbag, completely ignoring my response to redeye, and instead continuing to try and smear the company for no good reason. pro move.

You are such a domestic feline cat, bs. Don't you dare try to criticise me in future without first apologising for being such a chicken....

Whoa yourself, no.2. Your sponsor isn't proofreading your posts for internal logic. First off, we don't have 'competing stories out there'. What we have is information related to a lawsuit, where SLE are the plaintiff and TRAM the defendant, that has been made public, and a journalist's interpretation of that information complete with quotes where the former comments in the calm, professional manner of a party with a strong case and the latter in the profane, childish manner of someone increasingly panicked that he has, in fact, a strong case to answer. From there, what else can we reasonably speculate? Well, I would suggest that, if SLE did not have prima facia enforceable contracts, the judge probably. would have tossed out the case from the jump, so there's that. And finally, I don't know why the parties moved from a portfolio of shares to just Palantir, but I do know, and you could have as well and then kept some of your snark to yourself, that all those names have had a tough time in the 'DOGE' selloff, keeping the need for TRAM to pony up more assets a very live theory as to why things may have 'fell apart in the first place'. Ooops. Hope that doesn't get you riled up there, totally-legitimate-poster, sir.

Hello??? Come in, bs. I know you've read my posts bc only you would have ticked up the previous one! Time to come in from the cold, stop playing the cheeky gadfly who pops by with a couple obscure links to macro stories no one is interested in, and get in the game. Show a little self-respect and proffer a real opinion based on verifiable, if sometimes circumstantial, evidence instead of another jumbled, inscrutable message that is only meant to maintain your own self-image as some kind of impartial actor. You know I always expose that fantasy anyway so why not just play a straight bat for once?

'.....the only thing I am interested in at this point is my money back I need SLE at UKP 1.20...' I'll see what I can do

'no way' to what exactly? Can't you just answer the questions clearly so your point(s) are clear, starting with 'what industry analyst'? And then, how about parking the googling/links for a second and weigh in on the relative merits of the lawsuit arguments? You don't have to the go as far as to question the provenance of this 'legit poster' making his rookie debut, just try and see if you can, just for once, reflect on whether his arguments/insults/innuendo make any sense relative to mine? Or perhaps that 'industry analyst' has an opinion on the subject? Go ahead, I can take it. We're all ears.

Apology accepted. Meantime, readers are going to, yet again, require a bit of Blackswan's-enigmatic prose-to-plain-English translation, unfortunately. So TRAM has recently transferred this guy? So what? You suggesting he's trying to throw his weight around and SLE got caught in the crossfire and now TRAM is paying for his petulance? What possible 'hold' are you trying to (ominously) imply that Tosca may have over TRAM? Just because your hours of googling have convinced you that Nigeria is somehow un-investable, doesn't make it so. And what 'industry analyst' are you referring to exactly? That sounds pretty interesting, even, dare I say, bullish(!), yet you just throw it out there without any context and no further info, which almost makes it appear like you are actually trying to imply some kind of impropriety by the company. You wouldn't traffic in innuendo and smears like our new friend, would ya, bs?

Unfortunately, my post came in before couldn't-quite-get-to-37k's usual drivel, but after reading it, I'm sure he'll come back contrite and admit there aren't 2 equivalent sides to this thing, though I will not hold my breath. What a tool. Oh, and by the way, its considered bad form to 'thank' a poster you created yourself for the purposes of appearing to have support for your dopey arguments. Just sayin

So let me see if I understand this, Mr. OBVIOUSLY-LEGIT-APPEARED-FOR-THE-VERY-FIRST-TIME-ON-THIS-SITE-IN-ORDER-TO-POST-ON-A-COMPANY-WHILE-ITS-DELISTED-WHICH-ISNT-THE-LEAST-BIT-SUSPICIOUS-AND-WHO-ENDS-UP-WITH-THREE-LIKES-EVEN-THOUGH-HIS-POST-MAKES-LITTLE-TO-NO-SENSE: you're suggesting that in a 2nd transaction between these same parties, in which we can at least be certain that at least some kind of agreement was signed involving the transfer of securities to San Leon in exchange for a stake in the Company, that it was TRAM's assertions we're supposed to believe? Assertions like the legally devastating "repeatedly engaged in bad business practices, and we have exercised considerable restraint in keeping those practices discreet" and "attempt to distort the facts and fabricate allegations of wrongdoing is as baseless as it is desperate.? Ooooh, those really must have massively impressed the judge. Aggrieved litigants on the right side of a lawsuit are always resorting to baseless innuendo or childish ad hominems, so TRAM must be telling the truth, right? From that kind of genius logic, you leap effortlessly into your own baseless assertions like the bond is a 'faux', by which I assume you mean 'fake', even though the assignment of a E500m Bund position has in fact been assigned and registered long ago to a San Leon entity.

So tell us, Mr. Totally-Legit-Nothing-to-See-Here-this-case-is-so-Important-to-me-I-just-had-to-come-on-and-post-for-the-very-first-time: why did TRAM come back at all to do a second smaller, but still significant, transaction with OF and San Leon if Ali and co's first experience was so awful due to, you know, all those 'bad business practices' that he's shown so much restraint in 'keeping discreet'? Could it be - I don't know, I'm just spitballin' here - that it was TRAM that approached sle and not the other way around, after they "had a chance ... and f***ed it" the first time and wanted to try again with a simpler and smaller transaction, signed binding documents and then got cold feet - again - when the main asset, Palantir, collapsed 25% and they would have had to put up significantly more capital but, shame about those signed, legally binding documents, they now find themselves on the pointy end of an increasingly uncomfortable lawsuit? I'm not saying MY version is correct, but you have to admit, devastating legal arguments like 'oh yeah?!?' and 'f**k off!' and 'I know you are but what am I?' do start to make a tiny bit more sense suddenly, and its thus more likely to be TRAM seeking the examinership in Ireland. But you were close, right?

If I'm right, mark down Fanning and Hughes for trusting these guys again. Meantime however, shame on anyone who ticked up that baseless pablum.

Well yes, redeye, and that's largely consistent with what I wrote. As for the predicate for TRAM for apparently flaking for the second time, I provided a simple, clear one, and one that very much pivots off your own rhetoric around TRAM as potentially a bad actor: namely, that in this DOGE/Tesla selloff, Palantir has puked 25% and TRAM may very well not want to pony up a further c£12.5m in shares or cash and is looking to renegotiate. It's clearly speculative but it offers an explanation that elegantly covers the facts as we know them at this point.

Redeye - Obviously, this story is in the paper again today because the lawsuit is public record. It's true we don't learn why TRAM have come back for Round II (nor why they once again appear to have flaked, although Occam's razor would suggest Palantir's 25% share price fall might be a good place to start, as it would/will apparently require TRAM to put up materially more shares), but the clear involvement of Tosca in the court proceedings - which I mentioned previously I hoped would be the case - means that Martin Hughes - who still manages in the low billions - would have vetted the approach, lending credibility to Fanning's version of events, and more importantly, improving San Leon's chances of gaining injunctive relief from the court and, I suspect, the likelihood of being able to enforce that injunction across the pond (otherwise, why green-light the cost and time of a lawsuit in the first place if your super-majority shareholder doesn't rate the chances of success?). The higher the likelihood of success of course, the higher the chances of bringing TRAM to heel and completing the transaction sooner. Meantime however, as the article implies at the end, the far larger, more comprehensive bond deal (the 'alternative financing' mentioned no doubt) seems to be still progressing in the background and that may be the best 'news' of all in this interminable information black hole in which shareholders find themselves.

Redeye - you're correct of course, and the most likely reason TRAM is back at the table negotiating a new, likely smaller, deal is if they approached OF looking to make amends and to do that, they 100% would have had to have been thoroughly vetted by Tosca for their bone fides as a legit, prospective investor this time, before any significant time or legal fees were expended. Let's hope

Apologies. I realise now that I wrote a long, windy post which just a reiteration of my previous one on the 6th. Senior moment. Still, as long as I've duplicated the message, let me take the opportunity to emphasise that if there was a message worth repeating, its this one. The imbedded value within BATM is profound and obviously the value spring is being pulled even tighter as the share price declines amid all this uncertainty. All that has been missing has been management's willingness to at least begin to uncover that value by simply tearing off the old, dying layer of skin which, some 18 months later than I expected, they may finally be in the process of doing.

It will, ss. One of the many things the market simply does not understand about this company (and management only have themselves to blame imv for the information asymmetry, because informed posters like resistance and myself can only do so much, particularly in this brutal UK small cap market), is that Moti's decision to - finally - opt to shut down a cost heavy, marginally profitable/small loss-making business as they announced last week, represents a major shift in the Company's approach to the Strategic Review announced almost 2 years ago now in the summer of 2023. I strongly. believe that, besides the war and the difficulty of finding decent prices for the businesses they want to sell, the long delay to the starter's pistol has been inertia caused by the Company's long legacy of empire building with often low growth, low-synergy activities, which has then created more resistance to breaking up that empire by any means necessary (such as Moti's move last week in shutting down Hungary), than new management appreciated. This is a big deal (though, again, not that the market agrees with me at present) as it finally shows Moti is not just willing to bite the bullet (eg., take the revenue hit) for far greater business focus, but moreover, it breaks Zvi's legacy of non-core acquisitions at the expense of long-term profitability. I expect we will/should get (much) more colour Monday when the company reports and then management meet with investors and institutions Monday and Tuesday. Hopefully, this long, painful radio silence imposed on long-suffering small shareholders will finally begin to ease.

Resistance - I expect instead a continuation of sale or wind-ups of smaller, profit-neutral/small loss-making divisions, which will continue to fatten BATM's cash position (i'm forecasting pro-forma 37-40m by end 2025), which of course will serve as a nice war chest to start making those acquisition(s) you're looking for. This name is scary-cheap, as it has been for some time I concede, but with yesterday's RNS, what the market has yet to appreciate in my view, is that the Zvi Maron era is now finally over as Moti moves to (finallY) put his stamp on the Group and dismantle the mini-empire of unrelated businesses Zvi built up over time, and truly focus on the already well-identified growth silos that will turbocharge the share price over the next couple years. Hard to do, I appreciate, but patience here has never been more advisable.

How sweet of you, bs. I, on the other hand, find your commentary meaningless, so there’s that. San Leon’s future is a function of the deal fanning is negotiating and THAT’S why your googling wastes everyone’s time and only serves to make you feel like you’re being helpful which you are not. Clear now?