Now the bondholders have VDTK's business I wonder who they'll get to run it? Will Rob Richards be continuing the carnage? And would you prefer to be owning the money pit formerly known as VDTK or be a shareholder in EARN, where they'll soon have £1.8m in cash, a pocketful of dreams and some shiny new directors? I know which I'd prefer. Good luck.
Billionaires don't get to be rich by playing nicely and sharing with everybody. The big shareholders became the big lenders when they bought the bank debt (at what discount we'll never know) and have been bleeding the company dry for years even as the gold reserves dwindled. Now that particular debt-based gravy train is about to hit the buffers you have to wonder what their next wheeze will be to keep the money pouring in, because one billion is never enough is it?
A concerted effort is being made to lift the share price which makes me suspicious of an incoming fundraise. Looking at the cash and investments in the year to 30/6/23 you can see a depletion of £13m in investments from £21m to £8m to shore up the cash position. Eight months have passed since then so does anything remain of this reserve? More funds needed before this current financial year is out I suspect.
Not sure what else they can do. Bondholders have loaned the company £100k effective 6 Feb. They already have control and voting down the proposal would collapse the company.
Not sure why the mcap is still £600k. The deal would leave a cash shell with £50k (which will doubtless dribble away in 'admin costs') so either an AIM listing is worth over £500k or a counter offer is expected by some. I hope that white knight shows up but I'm not tempted to take a punt on it.
I don't want to keep flogging this dead horse, but to say the chairman's contract simply wasn't renewed is to put a questionable spin on events. The facts are made plain in the RNS of 18 Sep: RHL forced his resignation at the time of the last AGM. We were given a rare glimpse into the agreement between the two largest holders when it said that if either party votes down an AGM resolution then the other is obliged to do likewise. RHL was about to vote against the chairman's reappointment, forcing MTL Lux to do the same. To avoid this, he resigned.
He was removed. Kicked out. Ejected. Solely because RHL wanted him gone. We may never know exactly why. It's a lot of power for the holder of less than 20% of the shares which they can use once a year, and not just on the chairman.
Goshawk 250
Thanks for the info on the Relationship Agreement. Didn't see your message until I'd posted mine. How long does such an agreement remain in force and under what conditions could it be terminated I wonder?
Not sure if your question about motive is addressed to me but am I looking for a lower entry point? No, not without more information.
My concern in a nutshell is this:
Why did MTL Lux defend the continued public listing of MTL when RHL won't permit money to be raised on the market? And what's to stop them changing their position? Not sure exactly what listing costs amount to but I'm sure it's an annual six figure sum. We've all seen the dreaded RNS drop on other AIM shares, there seems to be a steady trickle, you know the one...
"The board has decided it would be in the company's best interests to delist from AIM for the reasons set out below..."
It nearly happened in 2019 and tensions clearly remain. There must be holders still here who remember the restoration of trading after suspension but the RNSs from the time don't shed much light on what really happened or give much reassurance that it won't happen again. Sooner or later MTL will want money to fund proposed M & A activity and that could spark another confrontation between the two big shareholders.
Lee - how do you sleep at night with 5m of these shares? What do you know that I don't?
If anyone can quote chapter and verse why the company can't be delisted/taken private I'd love to read it.
Meanwhile, I'm out again.
Good luck to those with more faith than me.
Hi CV7
Used to trade this regularly pre-suspension a few years back. Recently bought a few at 1.9p because MTL may be turning a corner at last. Bowden has done incredibly well on an operational level to turn this into a cash machine but so far it's only the major debt/shareholders with anything to show for it. Will the rest of us ever be allowed to benefit? Let's get the mezzanine debt sorted as a first step but as long as just two holders own 70% of the shares and 100% of the debt it remains a precarious place for private investors imo.
Seven years of ramping and still nothing to show for it. Must be some kind of record.
Nidgeyr - if the new investors hold 44% between them and 75% is required to delist, then the whole thing was stitched up with them at the time of the fundraising. They are already on board.
Now I'm out with a small but welcome profit I'd just like to ask London153 a question.
You've just seen the 82% majority shareholder destroy the investment of the other 18%. Once the company delists it will no longer be domiciled in the UK and enjoy whatever small protection that affords the investors. You will have shares in a company where the biggest holder, in total control, has already demonstrated contempt for his fellow investors.
Do you really expect to receive a dividend? Or even to see your money back?
So how many shares does he need to post on a public share forum?
Serves me right for trying to do this from memory having lost my notes... it's ICSID's Energy Charter cases I'm referring to. Apologies for the confusion but I still think this is a better way to judge annulment success rates.
Nick - very misleading to say that only 1% of annulment claims are successful. The vast majority of cases have only been started in the last couple of years and are awaiting a final judgement - only a handful have been completed.
Yep, 11p three months ago and £4.7m raised. But 14 times the number of shares now changes the maths and not in a good way.
pwhite73 over on advfn seems to be talking the most sense about this but just looking at that website gives me a headache. Those who sold shares they couldn't supply on settlement day should imo be forced to refund the buyers prior to being prosecuted for fraud. Forcing them to cover their shorts on the open market would cause chaos - more likely the whole thing will be swept under the carpet until the shares are issued next month.