Stefan Bernstein explains how the EU/Greenland critical raw materials partnership benefits GreenRoc. Watch the full video here.
Fingers crossed that when the deal is announced the new partner will be a direct replacement for Vast in Okwa and that all the principal financial terms as set out in the RNS of the 23.8.21 are unchanged , so that, in particular,the free carry of BOD continues.A requirement for BOD to have to make any initial contribution and to have to raise funds to do so would of course be most disappointing.So the partner needs to be a company that values the expertise of BOD to the extent that agreeing the free carry is considered to be well justified.
My only relatively recent experience of holding shares in a company which was taken over was MARL where the price drifted away to low levels before a deal was announced at a higher but by no means exciting level.Could the same be happening here?
We don't know when the negotiations commenced but we do know that they were underway at the time of the RNS confirming the existence of discussions and some 2.5 weeks have gone by since then. My feeling is that this could well be sufficient time for the parties to have decided that there is simply no prospect of an agreement,which if correct means that currently the deal is still very much alive and perhaps we are at the stage where the precise terms are being thrashed out. So on this basis I will continue to hold and buy more on dips as per yesterday
Perroverde. Picking up on your post of 1st Feb, Vast were in poor shape even at the time the deal was agreed but I suppose BOD were taken in by AP's rhetoric in terms of BP about to become profitable,which it still is not of course.Perhaps BOD had doubts but took the view that the free carry meant nothing to lose as long as GEM would allow a replacement partner in the event of Vast backing out.As to our next partner I would have thought that to get the best terms we need another company which is very dependent on the expertise of JC in particular. De Beers would not ,be so maybe although a very big name they might not be the best option.
Anyway ,very low volume at present as we await the next announcement .Fingers crossed that it is as positive as we hope for on one of the several excellent projects in which BOD are involved.
No mention in paperwork from Vast today and looking back at the RNS of 23rd August, when the deal was announced ,as far as we have been made aware, many conditions have not been met eg regulatory approvals finance so I wonder where we are up to
I find this aspect somewhat intriguing and wonder how this proposal came about.Perhaps 2 possibilities;
1 Purchasers indicate they are only interested in purchasing the subsidiary.If so why? Despite the cash positive position of AMC is there any "baggage" that they don't want to acquire.
2 AMC indicate that only the subsidiary is for sale.Again,if so why? Other than a distribution do the BOD have other plans for the sale proceeds .If not are there any tax advantages in disposing only of the subsidiary and then distributing the sale proceeds or simply winding up AMC. If a distribution takes place by way of a special dividend I assume this would be subject to income tax which I ,personally, would not be too happy about.
I would welcome the thoughts of anyone with more knowledge than I have on these matters
Well if they are the low volume suggests that they are only disposing of a small percentage of the 29m shares acquired.More likely that they will sell into any rise and the conversion could have been made so as to be in a position to do this when the rise occurs,which hopefully will be in the near future.Anyway agree that it gives a useful top up opportunity.
Had hoped to go to the AGM had to change my plans.Full report from anyone who does attend would be much appreciated