Tom’s draft for a 2nd FCA enquiry..7 Apr 2022 19:08
Thinking that Tom will get little return from the FCA with respect to today’s post on the S. Prophets board. He again asks the FCA to look at COPL’s RNS presentations.
On the 1st issue that he raises, of Copl failing to notify the shareholders of a breach of covenant from August / September last year. Tom acknowledges that in an August RNS, AM highlighted ‘that it appears that Cuda are insolvent’ & Tom then follows thru that AM should have notified the lender & failing to do so was a breech of the covenants for which the lender would have issued notice of such breech & that AM then failed to notify his shareholders of the material issue. IMV I’m thinking that AM would have immediately apologised as lender then waives the breech and that AM then of course forgets the bit about notifying us. Storm in a teacup imv.
The 2nd issue is more serious & relates to their being insufficient funds to satisfy the liquidity covenant on November 30th which was then followed up by a placing the next day ‘for acquiring Cuda’ and for which Tom has asked the FCA to look into as possible fraud.
There then appears to be a slight contradiction when Tom explains later that the banks usually take up to 2 weeks to then issue the covenant certificate and so I am Assuming that the liquidity covenant failed on November 30th and that the notice of failure was perhaps not passed on for up to 2 weeks. With or without knowledge of a failed certificate though, AM would have known that funding was below the $2.5M threshold (& if not & I now get to shoot the CFO) so at least part of the placing would have been put aside for opex & liquidity, so leaving a v. small amount for a Cuda bid (i’m thinking like..$1 as $7M was then accredited to the accounts Dec.31st) which would then be backed up in the bidding process by Cuda arrears c.$5M to $6M.
There is no statement from Tom saying that Cuda has not been bid for.
One of his regular board correspondents has posted a positive slant to the debt arrangements, in response to Tom’s reply last night of ‘yet more debt’.
So for the diligent investor, the S.Prophets board then comes across as similar to here… a wee bit of thuggery from both sides. And all centred on AM’s abysmal communications. Lol.