Member Info for Esta56

For some context to today’s RNS, this was the Riverfort situation, inter alia, announced in EQT’s 1st June RNS......

“ Riverfort Facility



On 5 July 2018, the Company announced that it had agreed a secured loan facility of up to US$3.2 million, to be provided by the Riverfort Lenders, as amended and announced on 3 October 2018 (increasing the amount available under the facility to up to US$10 million), 11 January 2019 (amending certain repayment terms) and 28 June 2019 (further amending certain repayment terms and dates and agreeing to cost reduction measures) (the "Riverfort Facility").



As at the close of business on 31 May 2020, there was outstanding principal of US$1,582,993, plus US$183,779 of accrued and unpaid interest thereon pursuant to the Riverfort Facility, for a total outstanding amount of US$1,766,772 (approximately £1.4 million). Interest accrued on the principal amount of the loan at a rate of 12.5 per cent. per annum. The outstanding principal and accrued interest were due to be repaid to the Riverfort Lenders on 31 July 2020 and the Company was also required to pay the Riverfort Lenders a redemption fee of 8 per cent. on the sum due for payment (the "Riverfort Redemption Fee"). The Riverfort Lenders have the right, subject to the occurrence of an event of default under the Riverfort Facility, to convert the outstanding principal and interest, in part or in full, at any time up to 31 July 2020 into new Ordinary Shares at a price of 0.66 pence per share (the "Fixed Price"). The Riverfort Redemption Fee is not payable on any debt converted in this manner.”

Ah ha.....it appears BD has found the shares to be almost 200m at launch NOT the paltry 7m I mentioned....nonetheless, the principle still applies.

GLA

Hi Slappy

Welcome and many thanks for interesting post however you do appear to be making a common mistake within it when quoting the £13,50 2008 SP..... EQT had way way less shares in circulation at that time! Somewhere around (or below) 7 million shares I believe. So you cannot compare that price in that format with today’s SP! What is more relevant if you want to do a comparison is the Mcap Then and now! But even that is spurious to a degree, as the company is a very different animal to back then also!

GLA

Sandman.....please read the figures correctly.......2.59 is a UT trade which is registered as the Close when in reality the ‘true’ mid SP is 2.475. Accordingly we will open ‘artificially’ down tomorrow morning, being the difference between 2.59 and 2.475.

Nonetheless......should still be a Blue day to take us into the extended weekend and hopefully news on Wood Group imminent! GLA

Lol! So I’m not the only one who can’t sleep in anticipation of today’s activities! This really could be an interesting one to put it mildly!

https://mobile.twitter.com/eqtec/status/1342026733269168128?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email

Happy to be slammed down here if anyone disagrees, but to my eyes, the true movement in the mid SP today was a slight drop from 1.85 to 1.835! And not how they’ve been characterising the movement in points (and percentage) based on the 1.90 after hours UT from yesterday!

Well said Bananman! I don’t understand some peoples perspective on this BB! How on the earth can you be “disappointed “ currently! The share is doing fantastically..... it’s continuing to rise surely and steadily which is the best way ultimately! A few members on here have pushed expectations to unrealistic levels at this time! Somehow expecting 2p or 3p or god knows what at any moment now! Just crazy! Yes, it can happen on rare occasions but in a normal grown-up world of investment we are seeing a company that is building an order book/pipeline with massive potential in 2021 and onwards, under great management who are highly focused and building the business in proportional steps to the current size and capability (crawl before you walk before you run etc.)! It’s just wonderful to be involved with them but come on guys rain in the daft SP expectations! As potential orders reach financial close and projects commence, resulting in more and more serious income flowing into the business, we will see a very healthy rise in the Mcap! As ever, it’s about being patient and taking an interest in the business and it’s growth and development rather than over emotive reactions! GLA

Good AGM. Nothing to announce either negatively or exciting....just continuing with solid work to progress the project pipeline. There were some slides and explanation how they’ve approached managing their project pipeline for success and risk mitigation and also another slide on the key areas of focus going into 2021. There was also a quick update on the Aries claim which was quite interesting in that it fleshed out the nature of some of the interactions between the two parties/counsel. They didn’t provide any new insights but certainly showed the very speculative and poorly executed case that Aries entered themselves into! As I mentioned below they’re working hard to bring Billingham over the line and still sounded positive, the issue being the time taken to get all parties to complete their tasks. And obviously a lot of that is out of EQTEC’s hands.

Doubt it. Far as they could release information, sounds like we may have to wait until the 18th for the RNS and they’re working hard to try and get through to financial close. This is only my feelings/opinion but wouldn’t be surprised if it extends to after the holiday period. Now that may seem negative but to me it’s just what is required to properly execute through to financial close. So I am still hugely encouraged and I’m going nowhere else with my shares!

Already been through that King5hott and I held firm and held my nerve! I haven’t just invested on a prayer and I wish, hoping my ‘gamble’ will come through, rather, I believe in the fundamentals of the company, and the performance of its new management who have massively increased the pipeline of opportunities which in turn must create greater chance of reaching financial close and contract execution. Indeed, the very existence of a much increased opportunity pipeline is in itself a statement of widespread interest in working with EQTEC. I’m impressed also that they invest on independent R&D to not only improve the technology but also ease the path through the due diligence process on pre-contract negotiations. For me, it’s these approaches and developments that attract my money.....and to date it’s borne fruit! Ultimately execution and completion of contracts that bring money into the company is what will bring about true transformation to the Mcap and that’s where my patience lies.

Anyway, each to their own. GLA

I’m super hopeful we get positive news tomorrow morning and certainly by the 18th BUT just to clarify, EQTEC’s RNS actually stated “The Parties agree to use all reasonable endeavours to finalise legal execution of the Agreement no later than 18 December 2020."....I’m sure that’s the case but the language does not guarantee finalisation.

My holding is 168% up as at the close so can’t complain.....but I’m in it for the long haul as the future for this company has massive potential way beyond its current Mcap. For once it’s fair to use the the term ‘transformational’ in regard to EQTEC .....so while I’m hopeful of the Billingham finalisation, I could care less if there’s a further delay as it would just be blip on an upwards SP climb! GLA

Fair enough davidb.....but then I wouldn’t describe those type of lenders as ‘Blue chip’....surely? And wouldn’t DP want quality investors unless forced through no choice or a general lack of interest? I’d expect my broker , Arden in this case, to work for my best interest and apply appropriate due diligence in the build up rather than utilise ‘third tier’ type entities! The results RNS stated that the placing was oversubscribed (allegedly).....so, in my ignorance, I remain somewhat surprised and confused! GLA

Nonetheless......EQT have what they Needed from the fund raising......and so I expect (hope) this blip will be a distant memory as contracts are green lighted....and new prospects announced!

Perhaps I’m missing the point (highly likely) but various folks expressing disappointment at the institutions, who subscribed to the placing, selling holdings (or parts thereof) straightaway. This doesn’t make sense to me for a number of reasons:

1. Any so called ‘Blue chip’ institutions trying to turn a quick buck on a placing would find themselves low on the pecking order for such behaviour.
2. Would not ‘Blue chip’ institutions seek much larger returns on their investment through longterm support and orderly selling down the line?
3. The Placing shares aren't available to trade until 15th July.......

” Admission and Total Voting Rights

The Company will make an application to London Stock Exchange plc for the 2,608,936,059 New Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM ("Admission").  It is expected that Admission will become effective and dealings will commence on or around 15 July 2020.  The 2,608,936,059 New Shares will rank pari passu with the existing Ordinary Shares.”

Could a learned an knowledgeable BB member educate me if I’m missing the point here.

I’m not looking for a quick buck but rather, I’ll continue to be a longterm holder as I believe the future for EQT is enormous and consequently, the SP also. I’m not interested in Trading for short gains.....or much time for the over emotive and anger at this fund raise. My interest is with the rationale behind the actions......was the fund raise merely to line the Directors’ pockets or was for a higher and legitimate purpose.....I believe it’s the latter.

For me, some of Buffet’s investment rules hold so true for EQT at this time....

“ Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.”

“Beware the investment activity that produces applause; the great moves are usually greeted by yawns.”

“Calling someone who trades actively in the market an investor is like calling someone who repeatedly engages in one-night stands a romantic.”

And of course, the oh so true.....

“The stock market is designed to transfer money from the active to the patient.”

Appreciate many folks will pour scorn on the above (And maybe rightly so) where perhaps they’ve been invested for a long time only to see the SP wither.... But, for me, I’m in it for the long haul, not the quick buck..... I’ll leave that to the gamblers! GLA

Good timing of that RNS!

All showing yesterday’s date....but that doesn’t explain the trade prices!!

A friend of mine asked what my view EQT was this morning. My reply was........

“Hmmmm......well, it’s not great. Clearly they’ve had to visit their finances in the absence of any significant income! As an aside, I suspect their 2018 accounts won’t read well when published later. My view, as I’ve mentioned on previous occasions, is that little to nothing will develop a proper sustained increase in SP until actual contracts signed and actual payments received otherwise it just looks like there’s mild interest but not much else. They seem to struggle to close contracts, is this because the other parties due diligence on EQT raises concerns on their finances and their ability to scale up in a timely fashion to deliver on contracts? I think the until and unless a decent contract is signed (not just MOU’d) the SP is going to show fits and starts at most!”

I only hold a little over 2m shares and still have faith in the company and they are clearly doing what they can to organise financing on best arrangements. But they must start to finalise and deliver on contracts and receive cold hard cash for their efforts or the drift will continue! I hope that in the months to come these doom and gloom times are long forgotten as a raft of contracts have materialised and they’re rolling in cash!

I have no knowledge of the mechanics here but if we take the below paragraph at face value, the ‘restricted’ document IS available, either at the Clerk’s Office or by purchase through Court Reporter for 90days prior to it’s availability through Pacer! No mention of why restricted or the fees involved. Is this unusual or a common action in Californian Courts? I see also, there is an option to apply for redaction in the first 5 days from filing (I presume by the involved parties). As has been said, we know the outcome from the Hearing but interesting to understand the reason for this treatment of the Hearing’s transcript!

09Transcript of Proceedings held on 6/6/19, before Judge Richard Seeborg. Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce, telephone number 510-910-5888, joann_bryce@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction after 90 days. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 41 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/9/2019. (Related documents(s) 41 ) (jabS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/11/ 2019)

very least. Are FRR refusing to engage with its owners? Please FSG.....prove me wrong.

I only hold 6.49m shares so am a small shareholder indeed but the money invested is significant to me. There are many on here with much larger holdings at risk and it is not right, morally or otherwise for us to be treated the way we have. I’ve held various senior posts in City firms over the years, including legal liaison and instructing officer, and in none of those posts were embargo’s on BAU communications or financial reporting considered or countenanced! In my opinion, we shouldn’t have had to unilaterally form the FSG but rather FRR should have acted to immediately and proactively to set up such a grouping upon delisting. They should have driven the communication arrangements with their owners and bent over backwards to facilitate this! Nonetheless, that’s where we find ourselves and unless the current FSG can properly engage with FRR and us, the shareholders, and demonstrate it has substance and is effectual, we may need a different approach, perhaps even as suggested by Bigdouble!??

I completely echo Bigdouble’s sentiments!

It is right and proper that there’s radio silence from FRR (the firm) and related entities concerning the legal action/s, in fact I would be concerned if they had been issuing statements and commentary as they could be highly prejudicial and, to my eyes, reduce confidence in the firm and its management. Any official publication, if so considered, would (should) be limited to factual statements of court outcomes and absent commentary and as a result, usually issued by the legal team.

That said, there should be no embargo, self exposed or otherwise, on the regular reporting by the firm (or its representatives) on the BAU of ongoing operations and its financials, not covered under the terms of any NDA. Indeed, if an NDA does still exist, the firm should reaffirm its existence, its scope and related timelines. Was it not promised early on, post AIM delisting, that we would be kept updated? So I can’t agree with RainbowRider’s view of being “....completely in-favour of the total "radio silence"....” though I would concur that “....Anything which might have a detrimental effect...is not ok with me”. Even FRR’s website fails to provide News Updates (unless I’ve missed a subtle link)....why?

In regards the Frontera Shareholders Group (FSG) I am at a loss to understand its actual purpose and actions given our experience since its formation. In a generous spirit, they may have been working very hard with furious activities behind the scenes per Moleinahole’s post. But why does it take such a post as Mole’ys to hear even a small snippet of activity?!. Similar to my comments above on FRR there is even less defence for the FSG to maintain silence. A body formed to act as a go-between, to represent us, the Shareholders, our interests and to keep us informed and updated. I would expect, as a minimum for a monthly report from the FSG on its activities, news and updates on information requests demanded and/or received from the firm. Unless ineffectual or incapable, there is no defence for a failure to communicate back to shareholders, irrespective of the positivity or negativity of the news to be imparted. And to clarify, a regular report should be (and should have been) issued even if no updates since the previous one i.e. Zero Return reporting. However, I would proffer, as representatives of the company’s owners, there should be much to report .....I would expect the FSG to conduct regular communication meetings with the firm itself wherein a proper Agenda is in place and minuted, actions agreed (with ownership), updates on any outstandings, new matters to introduce etc. etc. There should be a vehicle for FSG interaction with the shareholders they represent, to allow matters/queries to be raised and consensus sought on inclusions to the aforementioned FSG-FRR Agenda. Anyway, you get the idea! With next to no communication from the FSG its raision d’etre is, from my perspective, questionable at the