Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Will be interesting to have more info on how Q1 results match with the FY24 forecast.
As has been discussed they recently re-iterated high single digit % revenue growth for the year however for Q1 they reported 60% revenue growth.
From interim results their H1 23 had £75.3 million revs which was 3.4% down on H1 22 £78.6 million revs. So a likely a fractionally weaker comparable for FY24 but not enough to explain away 60% increase q1 24!
Taking figures at face value you would assume Q1 23 was around £37.65 million (half of H1 23) and therefore a 60% increase would be around £60.24 million for Q1 24.
It could be the case that Q1 2023 had accounting adjustments to be terrible, but in that case Q2 2023 would have had to be amazing to make up for it, as H1 23 only down 3.4% on H1 22.
Obv there is a similar confusion with EBITDA at £3.5 million q1, almost half of the "high single digit" ebitda predicted for the year.
Perhaps they foresee a large cost coming in from a launch or something at some point?
If Bob H can line up a big buyer this month it could be quite impactful...
If founders don't vote then boo have 42.4% of the remaining vote or so (going by boos highest resolution win in previous AGM), so strictly not a majority however PIs are less good at voting. If Bob can line up a large buyer to take more from PIs then Bob et al would be too strong for boo.
Already helped that directors have bought 0.8% or so of the share capital.
But PhatJ to make an offer don't you have to actually have the money in which to make the offer?
It doesn't seem they have the money unless they use their lenders money.
They can't just do a fake bid - "Where an offer is for cash, or includes cash, the financial adviser to the bidder will have to confirm in the formal offer announcement and the offer document that the bidder has sufficient funds to satisfy in full the acceptance of the offer. This is typically referred to as the "cash confirmation" exercise. As such, the bidder will need to have appropriate arrangements in place to finance the offer before it formally announces it. Where bidders do not intend to finance an offer exclusively from existing cash resources, a facility providing certain funds will need to be available before the formal offer announcement is made."
https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/publications/guide-to-public-takeovers-in-the-uk
So all depends if they could use the RCF for a bid which seems unlikely?
Redhammy I would say 90% boo as main obv thing holding it back, with 10% wariness around another audit delay, though I'd say this seems unlikely given they seem to have agreed with the auditors on how best to account for different things moving forward.
Not sure they can afford to make an offer, from my calculation for them to buy the remaining shares (that aren't theirs) in Rev B it would cost them around £80 million if at 35p a share.
At the last results they had £5.9 million net cash plus a £325 million revolving credit facility. So would depend if they are allowed to make acquisitions using the RCF which seems unlikely? Would effectively be trying to buy Rev B using their lenders cash.
The highest vote boo got on any of the votes was 29% support (for the share allotment question - some Pis prob voted with them on this question so support may actually be lower than 29%).
So by this can assume currently boo would have at most 29/68.4 = 42.4% of the vote (if founders don't vote).
However obv PIs are not great at voting, therefore the fact that Bob and Eatough have taken 0.8% of the shares, likely mostly from PIs will help. Lets hope directors take even more.
Obv boo could have bought more but if they'd gone over 30% would have to make an offer so can assume this hasn't happened.
Davwal, I think more the point is why release an after hours RNS instead of tomo morning, however doesn't necc mean anything.
Whilst with concrete news the directors cannot trade, if for example revb and boo had privately come up with some kind of compromise yet to rns'ed (or more constructive convos) I doubt that authorities would view that to be news that prevented directors from buying, unlike obv acquisition type news or imminent results where they could not buy.
There was another mention in the times but mostly not anything new other than this part:
Boohoo’s next move will be to requisition an extraordinary general meeting for ousting attempt take two.
A source close to the fast-fashion company denies it is trying to get control of the make-up upstart on the cheap: “That’s not a conversation they’ve had in any shape or form. They have this stake and they’d like to see good value for it.”
Revolution doesn’t see it that way, describing Boohoo’s manoeuvres as “value-destructive, opportunistic and self-serving”.
Hereshopin, but they refer to a "further general meeting" (in terms of the two NEDs potential) after having already requisitioned the original general meeting, so sounds like it would be a seperate meeting? Else they could keep adding new resolutions at whim even right before the meeting.
Even after this end of sept date. If one or more of the founders weren't happy with boo they could sell some of their shares to an external party anytime afterwards. For example in say 2024, then boo no longer have the vote and shareholders could order a general meeting to vote Bob in instead.
The general meeting requisition which has to be by Aug 7th at the latest (a meeting date has to be organized by 3 weeks after the requisition and within 28 days of whichever date it's arranged which is Aug 7 latest).
Something I only just realized though is the meeting is only proposing to vote on the removal of Bob Holt, the Chair and the CFO.
However now there are the 2 new NEDs who clearly are Bob friendly, plus Schwartz who is prob Bob friendly So if Bob et al lose they would still have 3 directors on the board for the meantime.
Meanwhile the requisition only calls for 2 directors boo want in to be voted on. This means that even if boo win, because of the 2 new NEDs, Bob et al would still have a board majority for a while longer? (3 verses 2) However boo would have the CEO and CFO positions.
Obviously Boo then stated they would put Rachel Horsefield on the board however this wasn't part of the original requisition so as far as I can see would need to be part of another future vote (as-well as a vote to remove the 2 new NEDs) this would likely take place up to 7 weeks after whenever boohoo requisitioned another meeting for that vote.
So assuming the meeting wasn't requisitioned until after the vote in early Aug which seems most likely then it would be around the end of September before boo could have majority board control? (assuming they won both votes).
Obv boo may not actually have 29% that was just highest vote they won - on the ability to allot shares, prob had some PIs voting with boo on that one.
Surely if as in the article says the founders bound by the shareholder agreement to not vote in a way that affects the companies independence then they should vote to block boo taking it?
The times journalist didn't seem to indicate that there were legal reasons why they couldn't vote (not that there aren't but he seemed to portray it as a choice).