Member Info for jimbob1983

A sale could very well happen still. That is the likely outcome, but sadly at this stage the sale price will be much lower than anyone ever wanted to wished for. Whilst the particular facts are different, the high level fact pattern reminders me of SXX Sirius. A offer will likely come in Q1, and we will need to take it or go out of business. The offer price will reflect this. In fact the share price current was around that of SXX before the 5.5P offer was accepted. Still money to be paid for some, but many maybe be hurt (much like the SXX shareholders). This had so much potential but the unexpected war really damage this company. Historically any Russian nexus had a high risk element, this time that high risk materalized in an unexpected fashion. That said, there is still hope and it's not over, until it is over...

Who is money laundering? Or where is the risk of money laundering?

Interesting you refer to yourself as a Lawyer rather than the more appropriate Solicitor or Barrister which is appropriate designation in the UK (or should I say England and Wales). For my sins I am a solicitor, and as it happens I have undertaken winding up petitions for clients and issued statutory demands etc. Sometimes they have plenty of funds, but just don't want to pay (for so many reasons, sometimes just cash flow issues- but that's not my problem), the old duck and dive. Clients, are just clients. It's a business relationship administered under a contract. You sue when you need sue, if the client has little future value to you. I would disagree that "lawyers" will do anything to try and avoid it. By our nature are litigious and I would rather be known as tough stuff who gets paid, rather than a walk over who let's his clients run all over him/her and the Firm's good name. But in any event, it will all come out in the wash .

Too many messages to ready today. I wouldnt worry too much about the winding up petition, it's a common tactic deployed by a creditor to tighten the screws on a debtor. The chances are that EUA was disputing the invoice, both parties got into a long disagreement, couldnt land in the middle in terms of settlement, and the creditor (law firm) issued the notice to put EUA's feet to the fire. It happens all the time, and doesn't mean the creditor cannot pay, more likley that they didnt want to for some reason (contract/service/quality dispute).

Has anyone seen a price prediction for SYME for 1+, 2+, 3+ years? There is someone commenting in another chat group that the financial times predicts GBP 16.50 (appx), which seems utterly nuts. Cannot find anything online to validate.

Not sure you wound enjoy Cayman, prices here have rocketed post COVID. One red pepper costs about GBP 2.00. Curry take away for two, about GBP 80.

Just logged in! Too many posts to review, but seen reference to a new ACF price range/rteport. Does anyone have the link ? Many thanks

I recall reading somewhere that the AIM failure rate is around 90%, shockingly high. Many people invest in AIM due to the volatility. Personally wouldn't put all my money into AIM, but it has a place in a diversified portfolio. Good luck!

Interesting article on FinTech in the banking space:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/07/jpmorgan-chase-ceo-jamie-dimon-why-fintech-is-a-big-threat-to-banks.html

This happens when a share is suspended, same with with EUA. In fact the "L" came and went on various occassions during the many months of suspension. It wasn't anything meaning, just ignore

The messages posted from the de-ramp crew are shockingly similar to those posted when EUA was suspended. All manner of comments about fraud, smoke and mirrors, a failing company. The panic, day after day, was awful. The continued attack went on and on, posters convinced that the company was never to re-list and even presented "facts"to support their claim. The facts and opinions were compelling, but ultimately they had not basis and those individuals faded away once the suspension was lifted. As many know EUA had a stella raise thereafter x10 (not to say that could happen here). The point being, the negative comments we are seeing are routine for a share with potential that gets suspended. For those shorting this is a feeding frenzy, they love it, and it presents an opportunity to shift views and influence sentiment. The first time a company I was invested in got suspended I panicked, but after many years experience teaches you to keep a cool head. In fact it becomes easier when you see the same negative behaviour, because it's not unique, it's a tactic, a tactic deployed on any other share in this situation where the shorters are circling.

Very true Purchaseatthetop, there are no guarantees. But the evidence suggests we are moving in the direction that most investors desire. I can only offer up my experience of these matters, as I have often been in the thick of it all, and when Counsel is engaged a figure has already been agreed by the ultimate beneficial owner(s) (or major shareholders). I certainly hope that is the case, as I have been in this for a year now and could do with some dosh to play with over the next two months whilst I am between jobs.

Agreed, DLA were instructed for a reason. You don't approach counsel just to have them in your back pocket. DLA would have also had to do due diligence on EUA, get a retainer up front and allocate the work to the appropriate team. I would imagine they would also know the potential buyer so that they can do conflict checks in the DLA group. That said, I have seen some NDAs that even hide the buyer's name and that is only released at the very last minute to be inserted into the sale agreement so to prevent leaks from law firms.

I was in SXX and when the offer landed at 5.5 the share briefly went above the offer price for a day or two and then sunk down to 5.4.

Does anyone know if the directors hold shares directly in their personal names or via nominee vehicles. I would imagine that DLA are advising the directors on their personal wealth. If they hold shares directly and it sells for a big figure like we expect their potential tax liability will be huge. I would expect them to restructure their holdings into an offshore vehicle to re-base the gains and mitigate any domestic tax. If we see that happening it's the hall mark of major deal approaching.

Nightmare indeed. One last thing, I have worked very closely with DLA for years on a day-to-day basis. They are on point and very good. We really do have an amazing firm behind us, and that gives me a lot of comfort.

Could be days, but from one transaction I worked on that was significantly smaller than this it took 4 months just to get sale agreement approved by both parties in principle before anything could be released. At times the lawyers were taking days fighting over sentences in a 100 plus page document. I really hope we can move a lot quicker, a lot depends on the type of deal and how motivated the parties are - complete company sale vs asset sale. Would be great to have this all buttoned down before the end of October.

I have some experience in this area. Lawyers are only ever appointed once there is a deal in principle, once appointed it can take a while to get all the formalities agreed. I have seen up to four months from appointment. It's surprising how long it takes to thrash out contract terms and for the buyer to put together a full proposal. During this process other issues can arise and there is an element of discovery during the process also. DLA would only ever charge on admin time spent basis. I am sure all parties have a road map detailing milestone goals in this process. It sure would be nice to know where we are....

Morning all, there is clearly still some misunderstanding about the pledge mechanics. I invite people to review my previous comments on the topic in this threat that go some way to explaining the nuts and bolts. This is really rather straight forward. Please do not think the lenders can sell the shares, they cannot. AZ owns them indirectly/directly. What the lender can do is trade the pledge (the "pledged shares"). This is not the same to trading shares . The very best example I can give you that people can relate to is this: It is like you mortgage company trading your mortgage debt, this happens every day via secured mortgage bonds . It can get even more complex with traders designing products from the mortgage bonds such as Synthetic CDOs(less common now) that are traded day-to-day). When that happens your ownership if your house doesn't change, does it? Nor does it impact the value of your house or local market price of the surrounding houses. It is a financial product that is separated from beneficial ownership. What will impact this arrangement is if you stop paying your debt, the mortgage company can then take ownership, now this can get difficult if the ultimate owner in the chain is some trust fund in the Cayman islands who owns 0.01% of the mortgage via the debt products. It gets even worse if the value of the home falls into negative equity, because the ultimate owner thought they held a product of value that is in fact less or worth nil. This is why the credit crunch happened in 2008. Anyway,,, I have gone off track..

I know that is not the most straight forward concept but please rest assured, there is nothing "funny" going on here. The idea that these lenders are trading these shares day to day is madness, why would they risk their security! They may well trade the pledge and even if they do they will not want to buy it back later. The pledge only develops (for want of a better word) in a real share if a trigger event crystallizes the transfer in beneficial ownership from the borrower to the lender. Anyway, I have said all I can on this topic, I hope it puts some people at ease. Enjoy your day all

Agreed. This whole pledge issue is all very simple and normal business but it has been made out to be something unusual and exotic. These types of deals are really common with small caps, my firm would process about 10 a month, it's a whole product line and there are lawyers, accountants and firms set up to service such arrangements. Seriously, don't worry about it, I have explained in some detail the mechanics but people are still concerned that the lenders are "selling" shares and this contributed to a decline recently.