Has any shareholder that applied for the OO heard7 May 2020 15:40
that their bid to be included in the Open Offer has been accepted.
And if so, was it in full, or scaled back proportionally.
I noted in the RNS that there was no maximum scale (i.e. two placing shares plus one warrant for every five original shares held) for the applicant to apply for, only that there would be a maximum of 4,166,667 placing shares available to existing shareholders.
Once that maximum number had been applied for the subscription was closed.
The subscription having been taken up extremely swiftly, likely taking no longer than 4-6 hours, especially so given that Peterhouse would not deal directly but only through our respective brokers, so that process in itself would have taken some time for most to complete.
Not that I am intimating that it happened, but hypothetically, given that there was no pre-agreed pro rata allocation based on existing numbers of shares held, then it is theoretically possible that a very small number of applicants could conceivably scooped up the entire volume of shares and associated warrants available.
Equally, it is hypothetically possible, that were those invited to be part of the major fund raise (12,500,000 shares + 6,000,000 warrants) to also have been existing shareholders, then there was nothing preventing them from also taking up an allocation from the smaller facility aimed at the rank and file small shareholders.
Given how apparently swiftly the rank and file small shareholder subscription was gobbled up it must surely be obvious to the BoD to the unfulfilled hunger there is for the rank and file shareholder to raise funds to benefit the Company.
That being the case, why would the BoD not consider giving the entire allocation of subsequent fund raises to the rank and file shareholders.
After all, the company would still receive the funds that they require, and any relatively (in context) incremental cost associated with doing so would be more than offset by the knowledge that they were repaying the shareholders for all the angst and financial pain that the Company have forced the shareholders to endure in the past.
Perhaps it would be prudent to consider such issues prior to any vote being taken by the shareholders to vote away their pre-emptive rights at future General Meetings, especially so as it has been proven how quickly funds can be raised through the existing shareholders.
It has been proven that raising funds through existing shareholders can rapidly be achieved, so not giving away our rights as shareholders to retain our pre-emptive rights cannot be a credible argument by the BoD as to why we need to give up our rights, and in retaining our rights we are not preventing the company from raising funds in a timely manner, nor are we starving the Company of funds.
Just something to think about, IMHO.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
