We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
If Q&M wanted to sell their shares they could have taken indemnity and had new share certs issued. They chose not to indemnify EUA, therefore not being able to sell their shares is their fault not EUA's.
Can you imagine the Judge: So err Q&M when was the exact time you would have sold your shares?
Q&M: When the SP was 40p your honour......
Judge: Really? well in that case I order EUA to pay the difference between your buy and imaginary sell price.
Get real Y-Fronts.
Looks like a bull pennant flag on the daily chart. A bullish signal for future increase.
https://twitter.com/HawaiiMagnum/status/1725477835752493076
Good work Del. Please do keep reminding us and the company on all outstanding information.
Hiding behind NDA's is a convenient way to avoid updating the owners of this business (us) as to the current state of play. Six weeks until the new year, is that our calendar year or the Chinese new year that the sale will be announced? or some other end of year? zzzzzz
To be fair it won't be the end of next year because the BOD won't survive re-election.
They could do that and form a consortium. But if I were Glencore why would I do that? I'd want Orion and La Mancha out of the equation and have a bigger piece of the pie.
They can get together and force the company to hold a EGM and add a resolution to be voted on. I think only 10% shareholding is required to take this action.
I do not think suspension is pending as the company have told the market that they have cash until new year. This does give time for potential buyers to make a reasonable offer. A race against the clock and the potential bidders hold the power imo.
Mv01, offers can be made at anytime by anyone to buy a company. The management will only usually disclose to the market that an offer has been made if they are recommending the offer. OR if the offer is leaked which forces a RNS that an offer has been made.
Not always the case that the offer is made public in the leak scenario (see THG recent offers)
If the management this the offer is acceptable the it will RNS the recommendation to accept the offer usually at a EGM to vote on a special resolution requiring 75% of the vote to agree. If Orion and La Mancha together hold around 33% of the votes then it is possible their block holds most of the power either way.
In a sale they get cash in no sale they run the risk of admin unless a competitor comes in with another offer.
If an offer is made public then the SP will likely re-rate to around the offer level. (see HOTC today)
The above is my understanding based on previous experience and nothing further will be known until the company communicates it imo.
My thoughts fwiw are that HZM have proven themselves incompetent at costing this project to get to the income deliverable point. If I were glencore I would want to take control of the build and commencement of production. They have the knowhow, scale and cash to make it happen.
I do not think it will be a (Glencore) buyout as Orion and La Mancha, as someone said earlier, can potentially block the sale vote to try and get a better price. A dangerous strategy because if no higher offer comes through it will be admin.
Obviously a white knight could turn up, and why wouldn't they. But again they surely wouldn't want HZM running the show.
For me I think the likely scenario is admin, similar to the Debenhams debacle. With Glencore taking this over in a pre pack offer very quickly, securing the debt which may be renegotiated. Glencore will have already conducted all the DD they need imo, and I'm sure this is far too tempting an opportunity to let go.
I'm very disappointed that the management miscalculated so badly, as I am sure they are too. Professionally this will be hard to come back from imo.
LB, thanks for the info re share certificates cancelled, haven't seen the evidence myself as not read the case.
The whole issue then has been about EUA following correct procedures and asking for Queeld to take out indemnity, which they didn't do. It looks like no-one will come forward to claim they own the share certificates, as they are not on the register, then Queeld will have new ones issued in March 2024.
Both parties have done the right thing, imo, to protect their positions. Anyone know Queelds buy price for the shares and likelyhood of them selling in March if no Co sale by then?
It's not deferred at all..
Queeld failed to provide indemnity it wold appear which is standard practice for lost share certificates.
Queeld look to have claimed that they had lost the share certificates and wanted the company to issue new ones.
The company believe Queeld may have sold the shares to another party some years ago so to protect shareholders from possible dilution refused to issue new certificates without indemnity.
The judge it seems has taken a common sense approach and will allow Queeld to get new share certificates if no one else claims ownership. If anyone else claims ownership then that is between Queeld and that party, not EUA.
Eua will either issue new certificates (and hopefully cancel the old if possible) to Queeld in march 2024 or they will not if another party has proof they purchased the shares from Queeld. As far as EUA is concerned this is case closed imo. Hopefully EUA and Queeld only paid for their own council.