The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Like many others, I lost significant sums of money by way of SXX, and want then to answer for what they did to all private investors as clearly there were underhand matters involved.
That said, I would urge people to not get too caught up in the reported legal case, as whilst this will potentially answer questions, the chances of actually recovering much of what people lost is limited. The claims specialists have stated that themselves. People recieved 5.5p for each share they held when the company was taken over. The chances of recovery at a level much over this price is slim, and no doubt any 'class action' would likely be on a 'no win, no fee' basis with the party making the claim taking a considerable % of any aware anyway.
I don't wish to be negative, as want to see the answers myself, but don't for a second believe there to be a pot of gold on the horizon which will get me back to where it was before all the shenanigans started.
Quite bizarrely I this morning recieved a letter from 'Equinti' stating that they had sent me a cheque for 5.5p in March 2020, and confirming that it had not been cashed, and that I only have 12 years in which to do so.
This was the share that I transfered out of HL to be able to attend the final meeting as needed to hold a physical paper share for voting rights.
Its current sat on my shelf at home, the share certificate & the cheque.
It's fair to say things didn't turn out exactly as planned as held near 500,000 shares at one point.
Having sat next to him at the last AGM, I think I would say he was not in the employ of Sirius.
I would personally believe he is absolutely gutted at how this has panned out after giving up such significant amounts of his time researching and passing such research on.
I dont recall him ever 'overselling' Sirius, merely stating facts many were not aware of. To be fair the project, aside from the finances of Sirius, is going pretty well so there was little negative to report.
I get the feeling people are constantly look for someone to blame. Its ****, I fully appreciate that as a longer term holder, but no one forced us to invest. Man up, accept it, move on. We lost.
It's nothing to do with 'needing the money's. Thankfully in my younger days (40 odd now) I dabbled in property development as a sideline to running my own construction company. Currently sat on 12 properties (plus my own) with nominal mortgages, along with pensions etc.
It's to so with why why wanting to wait until mid April (not a few days) to make a 0.3% profit. There are too many opportunities around that make it not worth holding.
As for other 'unicorns', 90% of my investments are in 10 'funds'. I've bought a few AAL shares this morning. Not sure why, but felt there margin in it, plus recently purchased some ESL to hold on to as see potential for a major rebate, but it's more a punt.
CF £7m, are you having a laugh. He's getting at least twice that by his own admission yesterday at the meeting.
The £17m AAL put aside (on top of the offer) was for Sirius Staff who owed shares, so in essence they are all getting 11p per share (5.5p from AAL buyout, and then another 5.5p from this allocated fund).
As such, CF gets at least 14m, plus no doubt much more which will be given as 'bonus' once in the employ of AAL. The same goes for the other board members.
Barnyards.
Have you considered that people are accepting 5.48p per share, instead of 5.5p per share to get their money maybe 30 days earlier, with a view that they believe they are able to recover the 0.02p per share through putting their monies into other stocks/funds, etc.
I've sold out the remainder of my holding first thing, as can put my money elsewhere for a month and recover more than the difference. If you are not able to, then maybe it is you who should not be 'allowed near a stock market'.
To me, the only reason to consider holding on to the shares, and not sell out and move on, is in the hope there is some knight on a white charger in the distance willing to make a better bid. Personally, I do not see it at this juncture, but you never know. No doubt this is what you are hoping for, as surely are not holding on for the 0.33% increase you will achieve by holding for 5.5p per share.
Like the sirius website !!!
This is the thing that annoys me more than anything. This money appears to be 5.5p for every share owed by sirius employees, so in essence they are getting 11p per share.
I u understand we are all (or most) are going to lose, but surely we should all lose equally.
Kaiser Chiefs, not The Clash
Dont see any major upside to SX (as a veryong term holder. At best, the vote tomorrow goes against them and AAL up their offer to circa 7p, as have other support at that level. That would represent a circa 50% increase from today's price. Certainly not a multi bagger.
To be fair though, both ROK & Carillion are nothing like Sirius. The former both likely traded 'insolvently' for years, although due to the way the finances in construction operate, were able to show a 'solvent' position on their books, thus allowing them to continue trading due to having a positive cashflow. This can however only go on so long, turnover slips, project starts drop back, etc, etc, and simply exposes the business for what it is. Kier anyone …..
How do we know there are no other offers ?
Sirius board neglected to tell about the consortium one until it 'had' to come to light. There was also no mentioned of the revised consortium offer at the time either, just again referenced in a later message.
What are the odds of a director of AAL buying the same before Chris Frasers purchase ???
I'm not contesting the requirement to provide a guarantee to 'reinstate' or for 'S106' responsibilities, but simply whether that be by way of £50m being 'ring fenced'.
Planning documents show S106 monies are to be held in escrow, so this is pretty clear. There is however no such clarification on the reinstatement, just that a guarantee of such needs to be provided.
I don't required proof. I simply queried on what grounds the company had 'ring fenced' this money, and on what basis they think they could do so, and avoid other (such as administrators, liquidators, and other creditors) having a genuine entitlement to a share of it.
My comment is, that unless legally bound, a company cannot itself simply 'ring fence' or 'allocate' a pot of money for certain activities/companies as in the event of administration/liquidation any such thing would be deemed a 'preference' and recovery sought.
Maybe its all semantics, but there is still nothing I can find, or seemingly yourself also that shows Sirius need to keep £50m in its account, or in a SVP to such a need. I would personally have expected the company to have provided a bond for such a matter, which would be more the norm in construction.
Not sure asking for evidence of 'ring fencing' in relation to the £50m for 'filling in' can be deemed as burying my head in the sand.
I prefer to deal in fact, rather than in speculation/assumptions. I have stated I believe you may be right, but simply have found no such evidence within the planning documents to back this up, hence asking yourselves who seemed so certain. However, to date, you haven't been able to evidence it either.
IBAB. So to clarify, you have no idea whether it is a legally requirement. Thank you for confirming.
I am not saying you are ultimately wrong, but referring to comments written in the media is hardly the basis of legal substantiation. I myself have (quickly) gone through the planning documents and could not see such a requirement for these funds, only reference for the S106 funding to be treat in such a way, and placed in escrow.
'Suspecting' is great, but not legally enforceable.
As such, could yourself or IIBAB simply refer me to where is has been made a legal requirement of the company to 'ring fence' the referenced £50m for filling in of the holes upon failure of the project. Much appreciated.
IBAB.
So are you able to answer the question..... ? Is it a legal requirement imposed upon Sirius that these monies are 'ring fenced', and if so could you refer me to where this is documented please.
So, that begs the basic question;
Are Sirius Minerals PLC legally obliged to ringfence an amount of monies in the event of project failure. If so, where is this documented ?
A legal requirement is much different from just doing so of their own accord.