Member Info for Hexam

Possibly AB but it is only one example (only directly comparable one I could find) but even if the timeline doesn't match up it should at least be reliable as to the steps involved and their order.

For clues about possible timeline from here (no guarantees of course) this was the timeline for Abcam who dual listed in 2020 in the same way as ARB:

19th Oct - Announces Launch of Offering (I believe equivalent to where we are today)
21st Oct - Registration Statement was declared effective
22nd Oct - Announces Price of Offering
22nd Oct (same day) - Starts trading on NASDAQ
26th Oct - Announces closing of offering

So should be pretty quick now?

Yes Amanensia, that was the conclusion on here for that reason - plus US shares are typically initially offered at $10+.

It is certainly suggestive that there is no discount but no price is actually given (which will be in $), just yesterday's closing price which may just have been given for reference. So no discount may be right but I'll wait for the actual price to be announced before I count that chicken.

nothingforever - as you suggest, there is no 'advantage'. Taking up the rights issue in itself does not lead to a profit (or loss) at the time of doing so despite the word 'discount' perhaps suggesting otherwise. In effect you are simply being asked to top up your shares by taking up your rights or reduce your position by selling those rights. Which you do should simply depend on how you view the prospects of EZJ going forward - just like for any other buy or sell decision.

Yawn. Sorry. YAWN.

Chuz - PW did say there was no problem getting hold of machines but we clearly didn’t get the 80PH that was due in July. Hopefully we’ll hear soon about the 530 PH due in Sept/Oct?

I agree with Lotto - if Texas goes to plan then the sp will be considerably north of 240p. But that’s not the same as saying I’d pay more than 240p to top up by Christmas or more even than the current sp. Firstly because there are a lot of bridges to cross/obstacles to overcome for Texas to be delivered and for us to be mining at the sort of levels that have been suggested. Secondly I’m invested as much as I want to be so won’t top up unless from my viewpoint the value position improves (e.g. the sp drops significantly for no good reason or really positive news is not reflected in price). That’s just from my perspective - everybody will have their own view about what good value is at any given time.

Put another way if the Finncap valuation is suggesting the value will be 240p post Texas and I believed it then I wouldn’t be invested at all - but it’s not. Having said this I still think its assumptions are very conservative (eg metrics only improving 70-90% over the next 12 months).

I stated earlier that trading on OTC would continue but this is only true for ‘F shares’ although from the wording this may still be all those of traded on OTC. Hopefully if this affects anyone it will be clearer to them from reading the actual wording from the latest filing:

“Our existing ordinary shares (excluding the ordinary shares represented by the ADSs offered hereby) are listed on the LSE under ticker symbol “ARB” and the OTCQX under ticker symbol “ARBKF.” Our existing ordinary shares began trading on the LSE on August 3, 2018. Our existing ordinary shares traded on the OTCQB® Venture Market (our “F Shares”) under the ticker symbol “ARBKF” from January 13, 2021 until February 23, 2021, and began trading on the OTCQX on February 24, 2021. We have applied to list our ADSs on Nasdaq. Upon admission of our ADSs to trading on Nasdaq, our F Shares will continue to trade on the OTCQX. Holders of our F Shares will have the option to convert their shares to ADRs under the terms set by our Depositary, as defined below. “

Blubay - “NASDAQ publishes the IPO pricing before the listing date is announced, often weeks before, but a foreign dual listing may be different to an initial offering.”

I think it is different. When Abcam dual listed the price was announced just before trading began and I would expect the same here as the longer the gap is between a price being announced and trading starting the more chance the existing share price can move away from the IPO price which would cause all sorts of problems.

So in short I think things will move extremely fast once we know the price.

@600 - “Does anyone know why we had the Form F-1/A filed on 10 September 2021?”

I think this is nothing to worry about as the prospectus must simply be kept up to date with any material changes to the business or events that invalidate what had been said in the previous prospectus.

For example I suspect an update would have been required regardless of the results of the GM to reflect it being a past event with known outcomes rather than a future event with expected outcomes. The fact that res 2 was defeated just meant more of a rewrite being needed than they were expecting!

As you say they have also updated for new Galaxy Loan. Interestingly the ‘use of proceeds part’ has been updated to say that part of the ‘$75m’ will be used to repay at least some of that loan.

As you suggest it is also possible that the SEC may have raised queries requiring amendments. One possibility here is that the previous filing said OTC trading would cease if listed on NASDAQ whereas this one said it will continue and holders have an option to convert to ADS’s.

In short to me this is all part of the normal process though obviously the longer the process takes the more times they are likely to need to update - and the longer it then takes so hopefully they can get a move on now!

@600 - good idea, hopefully you’ll get some clarity. Confess though that for me the incentive schemes aren’t that big a concern with the 10% max of shares in issue payable not seeming too unreasonable to me. I was more worried about the how the voting down of it might impact the IPO (not much it seems according to PW - other than the rewrite needed in the prospectus).

Chuz - I get the gripe about clarity but still think PW is more communicative than most CEOs on the things that matter. However here I think he did slip up here as feel if he explained things better he may have got res 2 passed especially as it seems the scheme that was already there had the same max payout of 10% so not really sure how exactly the new scheme was different.

Personally I’m more concerned with communications on new machines and the IPO and hopefully we’re get clear updates on both of these soon.

Hi 600 - must admit I don’t get how the US 2021 scheme fits in at all and gave up trying to figure it out. The scheme recently voted down at the GM is definitely different but not sure whether one or both the US scheme and the 2018 scheme now apply.

PW said that rejection of res 2 didn’t impact IPO (though obviously a quick rewrite was needed) so hopefully any delay (if there is one) is minimal.

Wolf - It was actually 12.5% and I think only appeared in the prospectus and the half year accounts.

@600 - I’m not sure how the 2021 US equity plan fits in or whether it has changed at all since the last filing - it’s very confusing. The recent 2021 incentive plan that was voted down was separate to this and they seem to have reverted to the 2018 scheme (page 107 of revised filing). What is curious is that the 2018 scheme seems no less generous on first reading than the updated scheme that was rejected!

For those that missed it yesterday here is the link @mwhite22 posted for the latest SEC filing which needed to be revised following the voting down of res 2 and maybe other updates - including details of the new Galaxy loan and seemingly new, lower 4.5% p.a. rate that applies to the whole loan.

https://sec.report/Document/0001104659-21-114734/

Hopefully after this short hold up the IPO can now proceed apace?

Chuz - but from my reading the 4.5% p.a. applies to the WHOLE loan not just the new bit as everything it says has been rolled into one loan. Doesn’t make much sense to me but that’s what it does seem to say. Second opinion would be appreciated!

Amanesia - I agree that is the way the interest should be calculated but I believe the rate is actually (and oddly) 4.5% p.a. unless I’ve misread the revised SEC filing.

Last statement I saw (in prospectus?) said 21,000 machines but as Flower says, this could be out of date.

Lotto - It’s on page 107 though not much detail but clearly says the max possible is 10% of shares in issue - same as max percentage in the rejected 2021 scheme. I’m not sure how much else has been updated in the doc but something else interesting and perplexing is that the Galaxy loan now seems to be at 4.5% p.a. rather than 12.5% p.a.

Caveat with all this is that I’m still only my phone so very difficult to look at the document and also search for things. So apologies in advance if have misunderstood anything!