Member Info for Frog111

The fundamentals are great but recent evidence, in particular the overpriced drone acquisition that was done without the approval of shareholders, seems to point to it being the case that ‘wrongdoers’ are in control. If we can change this by appointing a board that works for the benefit of the company/shareholders as a whole (as directors are legally obliged to do) then it could do very well.
It is therefore IMO very important to vote in favour of regime change.

Hi there Peterpiper
Could you clarify how you believe that Zorbas is connected as a shareholder of the company being acquired?

I have today instructed Hargreaves Lansdown to vote against the resolution to disapply preemption rights. I have mentioned to them that they may be hearing from a number of shareholders to this effect, and they have made a note to that effect . Please contact your nominee companies to register how you wish to vote.
I will be writing to the company Nomad and Aim regulation later today.

The share capital will have increased by the ridiculous drone acquisition, so my assumption is that the seller of that bag of hot air will vote in favour of allowing the directors to issue shares for ‘fee invoices’. In order to vote it will be necessary to instruct your nominee company eg Hargreaves Lansdown Nominees Limited to vote for you.

Whilst I don’t have any problems encouraging people to write to the Nomad etc, it may well be water off a ducks back. As a matter of company law, to change things there needs to be a requisition which requires 10% and then an EGM which requires 50% to vote in favour. In order to achieve that there needs to be a group of interested shareholders that can do that. Are there sufficient interested shareholders?

I have 375000 shares

As you may know 10% of shareholders of a company can requisition an EGM and require the directors to put a resolution to be voted on, eg remove a director.
The recent RNS was clearly sponsored by Mr Zorbas. Paul Brenton was nowhere mentioned. As far as I know PB is a good MD and has worked well for the business and been very much part of turning the company round. My supposition is therefore that this deal which clearly does not stack up financially is the brainchild of the chairman.
I was therefore wondering whether there are individually or collectively shareholders holding 10% of the shares who are interested in requisitioning an EGM to put a resolution to change the chairman?

For some time now I have been giving the company the benefit of all the doubts that have come up for me around governance/ protecting shareholders interest etc. This acquisition does nothing to allay my feeling that the company is being run for someone other than the shareholders. Quite how the minimal assets and untested track record equates to the price paid for this beats me. Smells funny and a huge disappointment to investors who have bought on the basis of a decent business.

Thanks, that’s helpful.

The continued increase in net assets is very positive. One of these days, when things have worked through, dividends will be a real possibility.

Does anyone know why the RNS’ s don’t seem to appear on this site anymore?

Retrace to 10 and then rerate is probably a better way of putting it

Thanks SL

I’m anticipating a steady retrace now

Is the RNS showing up on this site? It’s not for me

Bearing in mind that it was you Silverlight who said the Nomad announcement was going to be mid week this week it’s a bit rich for you to go on about derampers and conspiracy theorists. I find your comment a bit prattish tbh.

There comes a point when giving the company the benefit of the doubt re it’s lack of transparent communication shifts to concern that there may be something else going on. If we don’t get some info on a nomad on Monday I will start to get a bit concerned.

Thanks Ian, because URU has SP Angel as its Nomad - got it. That makes sense to me

Is it the case that JZ will need to step down either from URU or MRS to enable a new Nomad appointment?
Village Idiot’s revised review seemed to indicate that but I’m not sure and don’t know the rules. Could someone? VI? Clarify please.

I’m quite encouraged by the vote against resolution 4, as it sends a message to the board to take shareholders and the share price a bit more seriously. It strikes me that the low share price is largely the result of poor confidence, which is the BOD’s job to rectify by transparency and proper communication.
So, roll on new Nomad, and debt restructuring, as there is no reason the share price shouldn’t be at 10p and rising.

It seems to me that the more the old guard reduce their holdings the more the shareholding base expands, and given what we anticipate is round the corner in terms of news flow, the company seems very well placed for the future, so the more shareholders the better.I anticipate a significant sp increase in the next few months. This is one of those companies that is not like most of the AIM companies, but a more reliable investment. I’m pretty pleased with how things are and intend to hold in the medium term.

I suspect that the only thing that will appropriately rerate this share is the concrete information that should be just round the corner.