Member Info for knee

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.....

Resolution 8 was approved by 194 million votes to 79 million votes but someone asked for a poll of hands and it was approved. I guess the directors and broker came up with this scheme to avoid following shareholder instructions. Disgraceful. Directors should resign as the shareholders do not want them or the brokers.

Thanks JMK. Why would Peterhouse want to be paid a year in advance for their brokerage services? Is 3 months more appropriate? Are they ripping off the company? Do the amount of warrants to be issues relate to the amount raised by Peterhouse? They have raised £50k or so already but another £35k may be raised if investors approve it. If the £35k is not approved are the amount of warrants scaled back? It seems like too many warrants for too little an equity raise. Is it legal for the directors to linked separate resolutions which are voted on individually? I have never heard of that before in other companies. If most of the resolutions are voted against then the directors and broker/nomad should take it as a vote of no confidence and resign. What happens then?

There is much confusion on what happens after the EGM vote depending on whether or not resolutions are approved by investors or not. Your thoughts on what happens would be interesting to hear.

Why would Peterhouse buy shares back now if they know all the resolutions will be voted against? Surely they will wait until the brown stuff has hit the fan and buy shares at much lower prices or get the Company to issue new shares at 0.01p or lower? Are you certain that Peterhouse are short of stock or is this an urban myth with no substance?

Peterhouse will look like mugs if this happens. Any idea how the voting is looking?

What happens if shareholders vote against the resolutions? If Peterhouse fees, JMK fees, etc voted against then will the Company have enough funds to pay these fees in cash? If the increase in equity issuance head room is voted against then the Company can't issue any shares to raise cash. If these happen then the BOD may walk away; who then will step up or will delisting and liquidation be the only route left?

The consolidation is neutral in terms of share ownership. Every shareholder post consolidation owns the same percentage of the company as they held pre consolidation. In theory the price should move in the opposite way to the consolidation. Thus the theoretical post consolidation market cap is the same as pre consolidation market cap. A consolidation is normally good for a pennystock as the share price rises and that may attract new investors.

Jarv55 Thank you for the information. It is odd to put out an RNS that the broker is acquiring the loan then the broker misses the performance deadline.

Why did Peterhouse not buy the loan? Was there a legal issue with the loan?

If Peterhouse have closed their short position then the SP will drop until new news appears. This may be after the EGM on 3 July.

Peterhouse will try to get the £37k , 2nd tranche of shares, plus warrants which look excessive as well as their annual brokerage fees of £20k paid in shares. The brokerage fees amount of £20k looks appropriate for a Company like Nyota but to have them paid in shares in advance is very unusual and looks like greed. It is odd that the BOD agreed to this. Thus if Peterhouse have sold all these shares in the expectation of getting all of these amount paid in shares at £0.0002 all shareholders need to do is vote against the issuance of shares and warrants. Does anyone know if JMK has sold his shares as well?