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.
Hounddog10,
As the meeting on the 27th was cancelled, no vote would have been taken.
SHG would have been able to see the votes of the small investors like you and me, which had been submitted by our share dealers, but many of the funds and institutions will have chosen to attend in person to cast their vote. As there was no meting, there would have been no vote.
The Patels would have sounded out the big boys before the meeting, and obviously realised that they were likely to lose the vote, which is why they cancelled the meeting.
Unfortunately the rising gold price and rising share price make it even more likely that they will lose the next vote. So I expect this to be cancelled very soon.
"That's to say Patell's take over at 13.5 is dead."
Quite right 1755.
Most of us small shareholders have already voted against the offer, so our votes are locked in. The institutions, fund managers and large shareholders still have their votes to cast at the re-arranged meeting on 28th March. With a share price so close to the offer price, very few will vote for this motion. SO THE VOTE IS LOST.
The date of that "last major investment of 80 million" RNS is also worth noting - 23 October 2023, some four and a half months ago.
Then on 9 Jan 2024 they posted:
"As part of the envisaged transaction (the "Financing Transaction"), inter alia, it is also expected that the Company would be required to restructure its financial liabilities with a view to providing a long-term financing solution for the Company to continue as a going concern. The Financing Transaction would also be subject to, amongst other things, approval by shareholders of the Company and consent from certain other stakeholders of the Company."
Then on 9 Jan 2024 they posted:
" Discussions with the Investor on the Proposed Financing Transaction have, since 1 February 2024, continued to make progress and the Investor has re-confirmed their continued commitment to the Proposed Financing Transaction. However there have been further delays encountered with the Proposed Financing Transaction and the initial tranche of funding has, as at the date of this announcement, not been received."
The real giveaway that this finance is nowhere near is: "The Financing Transaction would also be subject to, amongst other things, approval by shareholders of the Company and consent from certain other stakeholders of the Company."
This is basically a rehash of the recapitalisation and funding plan announced on 17 July 2023.
"The last major investment of 80 million"
Iwant, I suggest that you read the RNS a little more carefully.
The points to note are "non-binding" and "envisaged".
Hence they do not have an $80m loan, they merely hopeful of getting one.
"The Company has recently signed a non-binding term sheet with a third-party (the "Investor"). Under this envisaged transaction (the "Financing Transaction"), the Investor is expected to provide funding of up to c.$80 million which is intended to meet the Company's cashflow requirements through to the European certification of the LIGHT System."
Whether the machine has reached full speed (230MeV) is irrelevant.
Before it can be used to treat UK patients it needs to be approved by the MHRA.
Europe and the USA have their own approval bodies.
If any of these bodies had approved the LIGHT machine, it would have been RNS'd immediately. How far it is away from being approved is anybody's guess. The BOD have not even said that they have completed all their own testing, let alone submitted it for approval.
Thinking about it again, the voting has only closed for proxy postal votes. Many of the large shareholders will not be submitting their votes this way, but will attend the meeting in person to cast their vote.
The Patels will have sounded many of these groups out as to how they intend voting, and decided that there is a real chance that the vote would be lost. They obviously hope that in the next month, they can persuade, bully or bribe enough of them to change their mind.
The closing date for voting has passed, so if the Patels do not think they have the required 75% of votes now, how will that change in one months time?
Secondly, increasing the offer to 15p or more, cannot work either. Any change will require a fresh offer to be published and a new vote commenced.
So just what can they hope to achieve by delaying this vote?
Great results and a nice dividend.
8. Dividends. The Board of Directors has proposed a final dividend of 78p per share, an increase of 15% on the prior year. This will be paid on 16 May 2024 to shareholders on the register at 26 April 2024. The ex-dividend date will be 25 April 2024.
"EV sales will start to grow again in 2025 as manufacturers have to sell a greater percentage of zero emission vehicles in the UK and EU or face government tariffs."
The car builders may have to produce more EV cars, but the government cannot force people to buy them. The high price, range anxiety, flammability risk and high insurance costs are deterring most private buyers. Present sales are buffeted by sales to company car fleets, rather than individual buyers.
If manufacturers are fined for not selling enough EV cars they will no doubt up the price of ICE cars to cover any losses. The government will I expect be forced to back down, or set back this legislation after complaints by unhappy ICE buyers.
Any claimed green credentials are likely to be blown away when the battery needs replacing. The excessive cost of a new battery will effectively render any car over 5 years old a write off. How that will help the planet is beyond me.
Mulder & Selpec,
Thanks for your replies.
To sum up Mulder has never used the DTA form as he did not need to, but Selpec has done so successfully.
I did not need to either with Halifax, but they changed their policy on this for last years dividend, without any advance warning to their PAF shareholders. HSBC could well follow suit next year, who knows?
I guess you got lucky Selpec, as LINK dismissed my application; they too appear to have changed their strategy, as per my rejection below.
"I have looked into this for you, and I have not been able to locate your details on our system. Your form indicates that your shares are held with Halifax share dealing and as such you will need to contact them. We are unable to assist further."
I will be taking this further with Halifax, but do not expect a quick resolution.
As regards it being a scam - I have no idea whether Halifax and other brokers are keeping 10% for themselves, or just can't be bothered to assist their customers in claiming the reduced tax rate, that they are entitled to.
I would expect better of Halifax, but they do have form for ripping off their customers.
Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) – which is now part of Lloyds Banking Group – was involved in a major fraud at its Reading branch in the early 2000s.
Hounddog10,
Your maths was right the first time!
If there are 193m shares already cast in favour then you need one quarter of that number to prevent the company reaching the required 75% approval.
193m/4 = 48.25m votes.
The 64m you quoted was because you divided by 3 instead of 4.
The worry is that 193m is less that 20% of the total issued shares. I know a lot are barred from voting, but that still leaves many unknown.
Fincent,
Thanks for your detailed reply. My issue is with getting the DTA agreed tax rate of 10% applied. This should apply whether your shares are held in a normal account, a SIPP, or an ISA. The Double Tax Agreement (DTA) entitles UK tax payers to receive a reduced 10% rate of tax. You will never get the divi gross or free of tax.
However it does require the Registered Owner of the shares, Halifax, Hargreaves Lansdown etc to arrange this with the Registrars - LINK. Most trading houses had not done this, but Halifax until this year had. Now unfortunately, they too will not. I expect that LINK would accept being told how many dividends should be paid at 10% and how many should be paid at 20%, if Halifax, Hargreaves etc could be bothered.
42trader,
The irony is that in both 2021 and 2022 Halifax only deducted 10% withholding tax on my PAF dividends. However, the 2023 divi had 20% tax deducted. I raised this with them and got this reply, which I think is a crock of $h1t.
"The tax on Pan African Resources should have always been paid at 20% however was paid on a preferential rate and a business decision was made to release it at this amount. We have since made sure that Link Asset Services (Registrars for Pan African Resources) do not pay the preferential rate and all future dividends will be paid at the 20%."