Member Info for FastJezza

I like what you're saying, tichtich...

To clarify, when I said the policy would not cease to operate, I should have said, "does not mean the claim would not be met" - provided notified in good time..... Once accepted as a claim by underwriters, it will be dealt with until settled or policy limits are exhausted.

Saintnick, the policy is designed to protect and support (legal defence costs and awards of damages) the senior people of the company in their personal capacity rather than the company as an entity.

So if someone or their lawyer were to allege wrongful behaviour resulting in financial loss to the person or persons suing, for example, a CEO or CFO, that is where the cover would lie.

The company being dissolved, sold or otherwise reorganised would not in itself mean the policy would cease to operate. But the claim(s) would need to be notified to the insurers as soon as legal action was started - or it was a clear and known possibility. Once that condition has been satisfied then underwriters would respond to the claim (if meeting the terms of the policy) up to the policy limits.

The main idea of D & O insurance is to protect the officers themselves, not the company, usually. The company buys the cover to provide the board with some comfort that if they are pursued they won't have to sell the house and take the kids out of school.

As previously, the policy can pay defence costs for rhe officers and damages to third parties as well if awarded/agreed. A lot would depend on how much cover has been purchased. If low, the possibility exists that the limits will be exhausted by defence costs, but very few will know at this stage what those limits are - will be kept very quiet. Hope this helps.

... against a fraudulent director, the underwriters could recover the legal costs from the directors concerned, but should still pay damages to the wounded parties.

Gents, a standard policy will respond until and unless either its limits are exhausted or a court case/settlement is reached. Fraudulent actions are excluded, but only when established against one or more directors for the purpose of their defence costs - not damages. In other words, if a court ordered cpmesation

Saintnick, I'm a commercial insurance broker. Any D & O cover in place will have been triggered already (it's a "claims made" policy) and so will continue to provide whatever coverage it gives going forward (subject to policy terms and limits, etc.) to the directors.

Often, the main benefit of such policies is the legal/defence expenses incurred by the directors. They can, and sometimes do, pay awards for damages ordered by the courts as well, although much will depend on how much cover is in place.

https://www.sharesoc.org/blog/regulations-and-law/forward-selling-a-crime-against-shareholders/

Worth a look for the uninitiated. May be illegal, and the first comment "below the line" very interesting...

Hi all -something that's been a question in my mind for a while is who is providing the capital when placements are carried out?
Typically, placements are funded by either institutions or high net worth individuals. In a highly speculative situation like this the rationale is presumably that a reasonable chance exists that a catalyst event is (potentially) close, and so the risk reward is viewed in the context of either a short term resolution (success) or, alternatively, no resolution (disappointment, followed by as many more placements as the pool of placement funds will support).

So - who are these people/fund managers, etc., who are prepared to risk 5 or 6 hundred thousand dollars a pop to keep the show on the road for each new window of a few months? I don't seem to be able to find a share register anywhere, although there will be one somewhere (probably not terribly up to date anyway).

Does anyone happen to know anything? Disclosure; I'm not invested, but interested.

FJ

Cash at bank 3+ mill andash burn (monthly) 2.3 mill. Result, misery by the end of June (strictly speaking early July).

So, shares to be suspended on Monday ("temporarily '). Buy now at present price and when/if funding appears before total collapse, the price probably jumps back to somewhere like it was this morning. But, no funds, no recovery, total wipe out.

That's a proper binary bet. Do we feel lucky?

Thanks, very interesting commentary, and I have now read the TR annual report and, in particular, the manager's remarks.

As you say, a character, but very readable. Think I'll head off and buy some of those Supermarket Income jobs he's keen on. (I do have Tesco deliver from time to time, but most weeks it's their physical shops - and those of Waitrose - that get my custom...)

Fascinating divergence between the language used in the results document and the market reaction:

"2018 was an outstanding year for Aston Martin Lagonda, delivering strong growth, with improving revenues, unit sales and adjusted profits. As the UK's only listed luxury automotive group, we have demonstrated our legitimacy in the global luxury market. Our well-defined expansion plans, that combine outstanding high-performance cars with iconic brand-status, are on track as we manage through the uncertainties and disruption impacting the wider auto industry."

And the mark down is 17% , taking the loss of share value since floating in only October to a staggering 40% in just a few months.

I'm a capitalist; I know shares rise and fall. But this one is special, even after all the talk of Brexit and one-off flotation costs.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/jan/16/flybes-sale-is-right-for-staff-and-passengers?CMP=share_btn_link

He/Virgin/Stobart/the venture capitalists are simply doing what profitable and/or cash rich companies can do when other firms run into trouble. Their offer, however low, itself carries risk to them - the east coast rail franchise provides recent evidence that not everything Branson and other entrepreneurs always turn to gold.

The new company and its owners (shareholders) owe nothing to the owners of the failed company; they'd be doing harm to their own investors if they started splashing 'goodwill gestures like free flights around. The fault for the failures like squarely with the Flybe board, not the potential new owners.

The only reason the share price is not already sub-one pence is the faint but not unimaginable possibility that a new expression of interest might emerge with a significantly higher offer. Unlikely becausell offers were already invited last year, shortlisted and due diligence/board recommendation followed. It would take a spankingly better proposal now to halt what is underway so there's a binary choice for existing shareholders right now - either sell for more than a penny, or hope the new offer comes along. If it does, more in the pot and if not, a penny it is....

Your posts this morning have fair cheered me up - thanks!

As for fellow pubs group Marston’s PLC (LON:MARS), Citi reckons it will slash its dividend in half this year. That was weighing on its shares, which were down 0.8% to 91.9p in mid-morning trading.

The problem with getting the food so wrong is that much of the profit margin is driven from in that area. Wet sales are important too, but if the food doesn't deliver, it's a major issue.

I have also had a couple of indifferent experiences recently, including one in Newcastle's Pitcher & Piano (a Marston's pub - who knew?). It's something of a flagship, just by the Millenium Bridge and close to the Tyne Bridge, with extensive river views, so it's never going to fail. But if the food was better I'd eat there (my office is yards away) - and it's not. Very generic, doesn't seem fresh and doesn't inspire.

Hi - Hargreaves Lansdown have this one to deal. Slightly surprised any serious firm wouldn't be able to offer it - it's listed on a main exchange.

On a different note: for once, a new issue is actually trading comfortably above its starting price!

I like champagne. And, on occasion, I like Wetherspoons. But I very much doubt the two go together!

I only post on here extremely rarely, and haven't done so for a very long time, but I thought your post merited a response. It's one of the most measured, realistic and compelling comments I have seen in ages; expressing regret but without apparent bitterness; talking of lessons learned and offering cool reflections on the experience overall. I have dabbled in AIM shares myself, with the mixed results one must expect in this market. I often read angry and illogical comments from unsophisticated investors who want (usually) three things - an RNS today, the share to be a "ten bagger" and the board of directors to be sacked..... You will, I hope take your more reasoned and realistic approach forward to success and I wish you luck.

I'm surprised that article is suggesting the boost to Irish reserves is almost doubling from £70million to £130 million, when the company statement makes it clear it's almost trebling - £130 million in addition to the earlier announced £70 million.... I'm very tempted to buy some at this price, but well aware it's the result of a greed-driven impulse. There's simply no way of knowling whether all the bad news is out yet, or if it's confined to Ireland. Nor can we know what sort of cut the dividend is going to suffer in February's announcement; neither do we know if a rights issue is going to happen and if so, for how much and on what terms. The effect of the winter weather still to come is another imponderable, and so is the possibility of a takeover bid. In short, there are numerous potential catalysts out there, and speculating on how the market is going to react to them is just that - speculation. In my opinion it's a two way bet. I'd be surprised if the share price is hovering around 90p in the spring. It'll be higher, or lower - but which?