Blencowe Resources: Aspiring to become one of the largest graphite producers in the world. Watch the video here.
It is clear that you have no legal, financial or accounting knowledge or qualifications, as such you should just remain quiet. The process I am suggesting is a simple, elegant, no cash intensive solution. The Board would agree an in principle share issue in favour of the new SPV (the trustee company for claimants). The number of shares would be negotiated with the claimant appointed lawyer. Once the number of shares is agreed the board would call an EGM in order to gain shareholder approval. The issuance of the shares would be predicated on the court sanctioning the SoA. Once approved the shares would be issued. The cost would be in the order of £2,500 per 1 million hares as the nominal value is .025p per share. A 50 million issue would cost £125,000, small beer in the scheme of things. The 50 million shares would have the potential to more than double the compensation pot and all for an additional £125k.
Senator1 - you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. A debt/equity swap is exactly what I have suggested. It reduces the debt based in the issuance of equity. The transfer of equity from shareholders to claimants is given effect via the dilution mechanism. The shares would never be issued at no cost per se it would be at the nominal value of the share. If such a deal were agreed, the sp would rise as the risk of administration would be averted, but at the same time no one of the new shares would be traded in the short term in all probability.
A finding of fact does not give rise to an appeal, however if the judge wrongly applied the law , then an appeal is possible. The issue here is whether the judge at the first hearing agreed the fairness of the proposal and the process to be followed. If this is the case then the second hearing was to ensure that the company complied with the agreed process. The judge in the second hearing did not state that the company had not followed the process agreed in the first hearing. The question of appeal may then turn on whether the judge had the right to alter the terms of fairness, effectively moving the goal posts. The same argument arises in relation the the FCA objection. Should such objections to the 'process' and 'Fairness' have been lodged at the first hearing.
As things stand, this judge requires essentially three things:
- a lawyer to be appointed for the claimants as they are deemed not to be financially literate.
- a revised upward offer where other stakeholders are contributing, such as transfer of equity.
- A new vote
Senator1...you are completely wrong. Issuing new shares does not mean new money coming into the company. The shares are a non-cash financial instrument that would be issued to the trustee of the SoA, as described. It would dilute existing shareholders, or put another way, it transfers shareholder value to the SoA. This is exactly what the FCA have suggested and the judge agreed with. Before you attack something you don't properly understand, take advice and don't mislead others.
I have a substantial holding in Amigo. I e-mailed the company yesterday to confirm that I would be prepared to waive my pre-emption rights in relation to a new share issue for the SoA. I suggested the new shares be held in trust and at a future date within the 4 year SoA timeframe an independent trustee could decide when to sell the shares so as to fund the SoA. The benefit of this approach is that it does not require the company to spend any of the money it is currently holding. The SoA claimants are dialled into the share price, so a steep increase in the sp is good for everyone. I suggest that if people agree with this concept that the write to the company and offer to waive their pre-emption rights up to a certain limit of new shares, decide this for yourself. This will have the added benefit of getting Gary Jennison out of the corner he painted himself into in the judge’s eyes. This is because based on the information he had before him when preparing the court papers, administration was the only alternative. The unsolicited waiving of pre-emption rights offer would be new information and it would be the shareholders putting forward a way of taking the company forward. If you are in agreement e-mail: investors@amigo.me
TWR were an amazing automotive engineering company and Tom Walkingshaw does not get the true credit he deserves. If you think, the engine in the McLaren is also a TWR development, the TWR legacy is just incredible. Tom also played a key role in Schumacher going to Benetton where he was the technical director, not to mention the success at Le Mans.
3300... thank you for your kind words. That said, your comment on Ford is interesting. Ford are in may ways responsible for the success that AML have had. They appointed Walter Hayes to sort of the mess created by Victor Gauntlett. Hayes, a trusted general of FMC gave a brief to TWR to come up with new cars to take AML into the future. The two cars they produced were the Vanquish and DB7. The person who penned those cars, Ian Cullam, went on to design many of Jaguars successful cars. The general shape of the DB7 was carried into the DB9 and still lives on in the DB11 today. So in a sense, Ford out sourced the imagination element. I met with Walter Hayes and he explained to me the brief he gave TWR and that involved pictures of all the DB range, including the DB4 GT Zagato, and he told them to come up with something that embodied the past cars, but looked to the future. Under Betz the company lost it way trying to switch from a high performance luxury car maker to a sports car manufacturer. The company fell between the two stools and has struggled to find a truly comfortable position in the market ever since. Whilst Moers brings all of his AMG experience to the table, Stroll needs to bring the vision. It is very early days for him, but in one interview he said that he wanted the company to concentrate on racing and building fast sports cars. I am very interested to see what his vision is in terms of actual cars. Obviously there are a lot of specials in the pipeline, but these are not his projects. I am guessing that he will want input to the new Vanquish, even if that means a delay in launch, and at that stage we will see what sort of cars the Stroll era will bring.
Wylie.E.Coyote...there are some very important points about the history of AML that should be remembered. Firstly, no one 'needs' an Aston Martin. Secondly, the customers of Aston Martin can be very fickle. When the company gets it wrong, or when the economic head winds are very strong, the company can get into serious trouble. Stroll may have deep pockets as far as the average person is concerned, but deeper pockets than his have been burned by AML, such as Ford and they know a thing or two about cars. Even David brown for all of his success with AML had to sell up in the end. Just as a word of warning...AML were producing good cars at the end of the 1980's, but due to the state of the world economy they only sold 23 cars between 1981 and 1983...yes 23 cars. For AML to have a 'period' of success, Stroll & Co need to get a lot right. To date Stroll has worked on the liquidity horizon and positioned himself to line his pockets...what he hasn't done as yet is to deliver on the forecourt. The DBX, whatever its fortunes, was not his project. I imagine he would never have built it. I think if Stroll takes the company 'small' rather than expanding it, the higher price points on a higher quality offering may be more achievable as the company has always struggled with volume. In fact volume may be the enemy of the brand as it washes away exclusivity a cornerstone of the brands attraction. Don't be so quick to dismiss history, it has a habit of repeating itself. However, between the various crises the company has enjoyed fruitful periods of success. At the moment there is optimism and hopefully Stroll can harness this to deliver.
Novechingood... I think your instinct on the share is probably sound. This is not one for the faint hearted. Since Stroll got involved with AML there has been a disconnect between the reality of car sales and the expectation attached to Stroll. That expectation gap has grown over the past months, however, now that the liquidity horizon has been pushed back, focus must shift to car sales in order to understand whether the sp will head in the right direction or not. Obviously markets are a bit nervous as far as BREXIT is concerned at the moment and AML is caught in that. I am of the view that there will be a few gyrations in the SP before it settles into a sensible trend.
Noveckingwood....nothing new in what you have experienced. I have owned Aston's for 40 years and have always thought that the customers were the R&D dept. In 1990 I bought a new Vantage. Over a three year period AML had it for two years...I sold it. I have a Vanquish S and this year they have had it for 6 months, so far, out of 12. That said I do believe that Moers will sort this out. I have been to Gaydon many times and it is a very good facility. Integration of the supply chain at the head can often be problematic, but with a greater MB component I think reliability will be baked in. Whilst I appreciate many on this BB are unable to buy a new Aston, the fact remains that Stroll can move the furniture around all he likes, but sooner or later they have to start selling cars in good numbers. The current crop of cars need to be updated and then there are recessional headwinds to contend with in the UK, EU and US. The fact that the company has gone one form of isolvency event or another 7 times can also be taken positively, in that the brand has endured and there is always a saviour waiting in the wings. I think the company has traded off the brand for a number of years now and unless they can get the cars right, then there is little doubt that an uncertain future lies ahead. My instinct tells me that Moers is well equipped to sort out both production and reliability issues, I have yet to be convinced that Stroll is addressing the design issues. The design, as well as other issues, are reflected in the current second hand values of the cars and I know that during the first lockdown they slashed new car prices. In fact they were selling new cars for less than second hand ones. This will impact future second hand values as such cars will be very cheap when they are sold. As a result, updated versions of the cars need to be in showrooms sooner rather than later to support new car prices otherwise the new car proposition will undermine sale. As far as I can tell, Stroll is in new territory with AML and is on a learning curve. Whilst he has an excellent understanding of brands, manufacturing, technology innovation and a second hand market that can be brutal in exposing weaknesses are all new to him. A work in progress I think.
I don't know what the DBX numbers are and I don't want to speculate. All I can say is that I spoke to my guy at AML yesterday and he was mega keen for me to test the DBX. This is AML and not a dealer. I think the whole company are very keen to ensure that the DBX is a success and every one seems to be maximising their customer contacts to get them behind the wheel of a DBX.
Normally I would expect the note holder to be declared. There can be good reason for the note holder not to be disclosed, particularly if it is anticipated that the note is going to be securitised. In terms of the interest, this will be payable in cash in the first instance, however, a payment in 'kind' option provides flexibility is cash is not available. It might spook potential shareholders if a payment by way of a new share issue was written in as this would add to uncertainty. There are also other instruments that could be used for such payments, but shares are the most likely. Obviously if Stroll owns or controls the bonds, then payment by way of a discounted share would suit him nicely.
Robglfc - you have no idea what my involvement with AML was. I refer you to my post on 12 Nov 20 at 13:27. Personally I think the share is good for £1.35 to £1.5, but only once they start selling cars in good numbers. I have done very nicely thank you with my AML shares.
NRL2901. The warrants are options to purchase shares within the allotted time from at a given price, in this case 50p. The warrants are less likely to be exercised if the share price is below 50p. However, as the warrants are issued anonymously it is possible that an interested party could purchase the warrant, someone such as Stroll, as they would have a strategic value. Whilst the warrants are in warrant form, i.e. not converted to shares, they can pass from one party to another so no one knows who is holding them. As far as the payment in kind is concerned, this would most likely be the issue of further shares at a lower price than the market sp to make it worth while for the bond holders to take such a payment. As the resolution to issue shares in a non-premption basis, i.e. not an rights issue, then such payments would represent further dilutions. For those that will shout about Stroll, MB etc, there would be nothing to stop Stroll issuing further shares to them to avoid dilution, which would impact Private Investors. Hope that helps.