Member Info for Kooba

The maths was fact not a possibility however the rest of what you posted as fact was actually just a work of fiction with nothing to substantiate at all.

A possibility ..a change of management leads to a much clearer picture of both organic and litigation opportunities presented to the shareholders ..the shares rally strongly as trust is rebuilt leading to significant enterprise value. Obviously I'm not posting that as a fact but as an alternative possibility.

So much for basing posts on facts…what a load of balderdash.

Disappointing.

What TRANSFORMATIONAL in the opinion of the board REALLY MEANS would be a start!

Troublesome

NGR

Not surprised posts have been removed. Many are closer to fantasy than reality…….

Troublesome

Looks like only NGR's posts have been removed - that's a fact.

NICE!

NGR

It seems you are not really qualified to comment on much around MAR regulations and many other points being discussed..but i doubt very much that you are qualified to make comments on other posters mental health ..in doing so its really just pathetic bullying techniques that i have seen other very very similar type posters use over the years. Not a good look to be honest.

“Not surprised posts have been removed. Many are closer to fantasy than reality…….”

Think one of yours has gone NGR ..something about someone not taking their meds etc..might be wrong though . Mental health not something to make jokes about i guess?

NGR

Kooba why don’t you take a spoonful of your own medicine and not libel yourself with accusations of insider trading on a public platform?

Quick one as i feel you are seeking answers..how do i “libel yourself” exactly ..do you think i am accusing myself of insider trading? I was not on the board and have never had direct communication with the senior management ..I’m struggling to understand your post though its kind that you care about my reputation being damaged , more than i do myself apparently !

NGR

Kooba what training in investing do retail punters undertake? I must have missed it at the induction.

Many retail investors have significant experience in markets and were registered under the FCA and in some cases overseas markets and have served as directors of regulated entities . Some may also have served on public and private companies as directors and are aware of standards expected under the companies act and MAR regulation. I guess not all retail investors are not without significant experience..that is a fact.

Stating facts FCA rules..they were on the insider list up their resignation.

The requirement to maintain insider lists is contained in Article 18 of MAR.

Companies, or any person acting on their behalf or on their account (adviser), must draw up, and promptly update, a list of all persons who have access to inside information and who are working for them under a contract of employment or otherwise performing tasks through which they have access to inside information. Insider lists must be in a prescribed format (see Appendix 1: Prescribed form insider list) and must be provided to the FCA as soon as possible on request. The requirement to create and maintain an insider list applies whenever a company has inside information, even if that information is disclosed as soon as possible.

NGR

The fact is ‘retail’ are a bunch of untrained investors..

Speak for yourself!

“The smart thing to do was to copy LOAM..”

When LOAM started selling they were undoubtedly insiders as they had a board seat and were part of the litigation sub committee , are you suggesting that their sales were “better informed” due to the information they received in that roll…or that any information they received did not in any way influence their decision to sell ..which seems impossible?? that is largely what this situation is all about!

Activities*

The bullish public narrative put up did not align to the activism of LOAM or RG. When the company needed to raise funds just over a year ago LOAM had a rep on the board , but they did not support the fundraise dispite there being lots of upbeat research from shop brokers and marketing material ..this bullish narrative was continues throughout LOAM and RG sales ..keeping retail as buyers despite their actions.

To be fair in hindsight you could say that the activities of these investors was a red flag but investors should be able to trust the official public communications which exuded increasing confidence as the case progressed. They were not aware of what an acceptable fair and reasonable settlement might look like…otherwise they would not have backed the fundraise and would likely have been selling too !!

Qd

if so, why didn't he ask for an investigation? And if so, why isn't there any investigation? hmmm?

How do you know that TH has not asked for an FCA investigation ? And how do you know one is not ongoing exactly? These things are not publicised pending outcome.

I made an official complaint to the FCA long before TH was on the scene referenced elsewhere , it was around the specific likelihood that in his role as a director less than 4 months before the settlement announcement that Turcan as a main board director would have been in possession of material price sensitive information above and beyond what was in the public domain. Around modelling , board position on acceptable settlement , the terms of the funding arrangement and all the advise given by the professional advisors up to the point of his sudden and immediate resignation on 12th Sept 2022.

I had no idea of there being a call 7 hours ahead of the rns..confirmed by the Chair that further muddied the waters on ongoing private communications with certain holders.

So the FCA has been contacted …i am aware of a number of other private shareholders that have also lodged complaints following the market action on 6th Jan and ongoing.

on the loan notes and “the call”

details of the non-dilutive subscription for the loan notes

the loan notes are unsecured and have a nominal value of gbp1 each, an arrangement fee of 1.4% of the nominal amount and are repayable three years from completion which is expected to take place prior to 31 july 2021. the subscription price of 70p represents a discount to the nominal value of gbp1 equivalent to 12% interest per annum. the company may redeem the loan notes at any time prior to their maturity at 80% of nominal value during the first year of the term; 90% at any time in year two, and 100% at any time in year three. in the event of a successful outcome to the litigation or a change of control of the company, the loan note holders are entitled to a success bonus of 105% of the nominal value of the loan notes subscribed.

so they were entitled to £4.7m “success bonus”..and are still owed £4.5m in capital on redemption.

“there will also be a one off interest charge of approximately gbp4.7m linked to the group's loan notes that were executed in july 2021, based on a successful conclusion to the samsung litigation.”

3rd feb 23

so they put in £3.15m 2 years ago and will get out £9.225m in total on redemption.

no sign of any discount being negotiated they are getting the maximum and agreed payout as far as is disclosed.

if a conversation took place and even touched on the low end being a reason to consider a discount on stated terms then that meant far more to recent insiders on any call than to retail investors generally.

what was discussed exactly ..a transcript is needed to explain “the call” what they are saying at the moment makes no sense and does not convince that a greater level of information was not shared above and beyond the very sp**** detail on the 6th jan. this left a disorderly market and retail investors exposed to a very un-level playing field.

if the company do not better explain there should be an enquiry ..if no transcript or record of the call was not retained by ant party on the call there should be an enquiry.

I think they manage funds holdings 14% but do not have the voting rights for half that holding ..I believe something like a Strathclyde pension fund have that honour.

Running external funds like that means they are slightly more vulnerable to any bad publicity I guess… I’m sure public sector pension funds will want to be squeaky clean.

Many have sold I guess (including LOAM and RG) hence where we find the share price at a discount to pro forma cash. Maybe be that included some LTHs who’ve given up?

But trading at a negative enterprise value is not a vote of confidence generally and I notice there has been no real evidence of any institutional buying taking advantage of the situation …I note the Harwoods of this word keen to tell other shareholders how to vote but norms confident to move to a disclosable position so remain under 3% substantial more though than the other institutional supporter owning less than 1% ..if either think there is great value in the company under the current management maybe s way of demonstrating that would be to raise the interests? Very much like the management would have been good to have seen them take advantage of the share price resulting from their transformational settlement..the chair did buy a few after but nothing from the executives..they just wait for the freebies!!

Majority of that stock went to retail along with the placing stock at 37p (that neither LOAM or RG supported) . Both the board and those major shares use retail as a liquidity pool demand fuelled by optimistic comms and promotional material..one may wonder if this is the ultimate pump and dump !?

I can only go on what they say…apparently you believe every word the incumbent management say though much does not add up on the allegations ( and they have never seem to deliver anything they promise ) at all and disbelieve everything the requisition group says. That merely demonstrates your opinion is extremely biased. Since you have no way of knowing that the new directors would break their word on renumeration though it is rather nonsensical presumption.

They stated in the presentation that board renumeration would be lower than current levels did you not listen to that ? ..maybe there should be a more success based incentive linked to the share price so that they are better aligned with shareholders.

Over the years there have been significant bonus and share incentives..often forming the majority of any board shareholdings ( as with the last freebies) whilst shareholders have seen no benefit through an increased share price…where is the incentive if managements get generous payouts when they don’t hit strategic goals?