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.
Complex......only the weak hide behind complexity. It is simple : Listen to shareholders, do not abuse shareholders and be consistent. It is not a great deal to ask. Shareholders were given the chance to vote on the first PH equity raise , PH's excessive fees, options and related matters. Shareholders overwhelmingly voted against PH's resolutions. So the BOD then announced a far worse deal with PH with no shareholder vote. So much for complexity! Hopefully the new institutional shareholders will expect to be treated better than the existing PIs. Get the RTO done.......not very complex, then sack the hopeless BOD .........simple, sack PH and appoint a respected broker.............simple.
If the RTO is that advanced then the directors must know about it so it should be disclosed via RNS? Stocks that are liked by institutional investors are often unlikely to appeal to PIs, thus the current shareholders are again unlikely to be happy. However if institutional investors are involved they must kick out the existing BOD as they have ignored existing shareholders wishes and clearly are in PH's pocket. However existing shareholders must shoulder some of the blame by not calling a general meeting to stop PH and the BOD.
130 mill is more than 3% and should have been disclosed. If you want to call an egm I suggest you speak to the company and ask for direction. At the same time speak to Mitchell Tarr who organised the last EGM. Someone must know his contact details. JMK is always helpful if you have questions.
Latino You are welcome to believe whatever you consider to be correct. For example if you really think shareholders have been looked after properly by the directors then fine. It is your opinion and no one will say that you are not allowed an opinion. I email JMK and he is not required to be so confidential on matters that do not relate to his tenure as a director. He is happy to chat with shareholders.
I notice it took the directors a week to publish the last TR1. The TR1 from JMK also took days for them to RNS. Surely these should have been promptly reported to maintain a fair market?
It depends if the shareholders can be bothered to fight or just roll over and die like PH and the directors expect them to do. Angry shareholders should write to Aussie Registrar of Companies/ASX to complain of poor governance and try to get the directors banned from being directors. A letter to FCA to complain on PH may not achieve much but it may upset PH. Where is TW when he is really needed???
Shareholders are wiped out in this proposed deal. Better to sod the directors and PH rather than allow them to rape the shareholders with impunity.
5% of issued shareholders are needed to call an EGM. With the new declared 3.99% shareholder it should be easy to get to 5%. The EGM needs to address the various things that shareholders want changed such as less dilution, more transparency, change directors , etc. The EGM needs to be called very soon to put pressure on PH to renegotiate the terms of their dreadful deal, and pressure on the directors to stop supporting PH and support the shareholders.
I am informed that JMK made an offer to fund £100k , not the £550k that PH have agreed to, at a much higher price than PH. The board told JMK that they needed £75k to cover costs and £100k to be comfortable ahead of the RTO.JMK also introduced the board to the nomad referred to in the RNS as the Board could not obtain a nomad. A ready to go RTO with 75% funding in place was also offer to NYO. This would have been much less dilutive to shareholders. PH are obviously looking after the current board to allow shareholders to be so abused.
Can shareholders call an EGM before the Board gift the company to PH? That may give shareholders some say in the matter rather than being ignored. PH will not offer new shares to existing shareholders as they hate them.
I heard that when PH did the last deal at 0.02p that there was another offer of funding 25% higher. The Board, except JM-K, voted for PH, that is why he resigned although he never confirmed this. It looks as though the Board is consistent as supporting PH in face of better offers. It is odd that the Board can gift the company to PH without a shareholders vote whereas last time shareholders voted against all PH related resolutions at the EGM. The Board have ignored shareholders this time as they dared to go against the Board's recommendations just a few weeks ago. Corporate governance and respect for shareholders hits a new low. Next thing will be Beaumont Cornish being appointed on £100k a year. TW would be pleased.......
Will the BigDish loan conversion need shareholder vote again? The last fundraise was a failure as shareholders did not approve it. Will the next fund raise need a shareholder vote? There appears to be precedent for so doing. That requires a shareholder meeting which takes a month or so to hold. Then there will be very little time to agree any RTO that Peterhouse forces on the company. Will the board allow existing shareholders to invest in the Peterhouse equity raise at a substantial discount (0.005p?) or is it only for Peterhouse clients?
The company had been given notice that Peterhouse were resigning on the same date as the much despised current Nomad. Shareholders voted against all the Peterhouse resolutions at the last fundraise. Have the BOD forgotten this? Peterhouse also failed to deliver on the BigDish loan according to TW. They may default on that again. Why were the BOD bothering to talk to Peterhouse? The BOD are Australia based and will never be on the board of an AIM company again so why should they care about shareholders.
Agreed for a new investment. For those already invested do they sell now or hold. If they sell and it goes bust they the sellers will be happy. If they sell and the Hail Mary pass works the share price will rise 3 or 4 times or more; then the sellers will be less than happy.........a tenner on the 4.30 at Kempton appeals to some.
Considering all the indicators are so bad there is still a slim possibility that things could turn out ok. No Nomad, no company though. If a Nomad takes the plunge there will be a need for a fund raise to keeps the lights on. Given the current share price any fund raise will be dilutive but it is better than the alternative. toss a coin........on one side the company is bust, the other side is a new Nomad, survival, a fund raise and hopefully then a RTO. Then the share price will be much higher than currently. Downside only 0.015p , upside multiples of the downside.
I heard a rumour that the Company have arranged for the Nomad and Broker not to resign. It can't be true surely!!! Beaumont Cornish must have some pride. TW will be delighted if it is true.
It is unlikely to ever re-emerge on AIM. A disaster from start to finish. The BOD have been dreadful. The CEO treats the company as his own fiefdom and look what a shambles he has made. An Italian company with Italian customers, business only in Italy, Italian lenders, and it is listed on AIM and not Milan. That looks odd. If it is not good enough for the Italians then .......... The token British NEDs should have jumped off this sinking ship if they had any sense.
If the directors wanted to give transparency they would have said who asked for a show of hands. It should be in the minutes of the EGM which I doubt any shareholders will ever see.
The directors put forward the resolutions and recommended the shareholders vote in favour of them. The fact shareholders didn't shows that the directors do not , or did not at least , realise what shareholders want. Shareholders obviously do not want Peterhouse lining their own pockets to the detriment of shareholders. Shareholders do not want Peterhouse full stop. Shareholders should consider calling an EGM to remove the remaining directors and replace them with directors that understand shareholders' concerns and wishes. How can this dysfunctional company be attractive for any RTO? The directors get paid so why would they care about shareholders' concerns. It is interesting to note that the NOMADs , who have a bad reputation, did not even try to abuse shareholders with the sort of tricks Peterhouse tried. Maybe they will all resign.
The new director was clearly voted against but the resolution was withdrawn to save his skin. Shareholders clearly voted for Res 4 and won 189mill against 85 million. The Board had linked res 3 and Res 4 together for some reason. Res 3 benefitted Peterhouse of course so that's why they were linked! It went against what shareholders clearly want. Res 3 and res 4 are subject to wholly exclusive contracts and there is no valid reason to link these. Res 8 shareholders voted against the resolution 194million vs 79 million but it was carried against shareholder wishers by a poll of hands. The beneficiary of Res 8 being past was Peterhouse of course. Shareholders abused.....