Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
As I understand it a 75% shareholder vote is required for this however it is also possible if they obtain a court order for share capital reduction (to under £50k) which doesn't seem to require the shareholder vote. MM taking the company private is one of my main concerns, anyone wiser than me able to reassure me here? Thanks in advance
Is the company not still able to draw down up to another £3m if bod wants to or have I missed them saying they won’t be drawing down any more. No convertibles left is based on 1m out of a possible 4m being drawn? Sorry I haven’t been keeping bang up to date on things here…
...the Evergrande debacle is far from over. Next interest payment due on 23rd which it can't meet. I do feel the situation will be largely localised within China however that's not to say global markets won't react in the short term but wtfdik!
Hi All, I remember looking at RGM about 10 years ago however it sounded like a good story but with no income and usual dilutive fund raising I gave it a miss then. Moving forward to today under its new name then has anything changed that makes this worthy of investment without constant fear of being significantly diluted. I'm happy to be a long term investor for value to out itself but not if being constantly diluted. Would value the opinion of others here who have kept up with the company more than me over the years. I will of course be doing my own research so this is just useful to me as a starting point. Thanks
1. What is the purpose of resolution 1 – what is the difference between allotting the shares and issuing them i.e. why is resolution 1 needed – why not just the authority to issue?
Allotment creates an unconditional right for a person to be registered as a shareholder of a company. The shares are issued after the name of the person to whom those shares have been allotted are entered into the shareholder register. That person is then able to exercise his or her rights as a shareholder. Resolution 1 is an ordinary resolution and has a 50% approval threshold.
2. Could you kindly explain the purposes of resolutions 3 & 4 particularly #3?
The Companies Act 2006 gives shareholders a pre-emption right, pro-rata to their existing shareholdings over any proposed share allotments. The purpose of Resolutions 3 and 4 is to allow the Company to allot and issue the share amounts stated in Resolutions 1 and 2 respectively on a non-pre-emptive basis. This is done when the Company believes the issuance of the shares on a non-pre-emptive basis is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. Factors taken into consideration when deciding on a non-pre-emptive equity issuance versus an alternative rights issue included the time available and capital requirement to conclude the associated asset acquisition. Resolutions 3 and 4 are special resolutions and have a 75% approval threshold.
GGG
For what its worth I was gutted with the downward movement in share price and was initially ****ed at BOD for this. However the real reason I'm ****ed is because I didn't bank profit at 16p which I had contemplated. The reason I didn't was I felt the Serenity news could drop at any time and didn't want to miss that boat. I could have sold half but didn't. That's on me.
Obviously the Alberta deal is a good one however I agree that it dilutes the blue sky potential of existing projects. Having said that we don't know what blue sky potential Alberta holds. There are synergies and cost savings to be had plus the additional NOI backdated to April. Total NOI now looking at around 80 million pa. We really have no clue what access to debt i3e had, likely uptake from PI's for a raising this big would have been difficult and in good time. I suspect bod also under pressure to complete sooner rather than later given its on similar to 2020 metrics.
Graham has a significant holding of shares so I'm reassured by that re their intentions.
What I'm wondering though is if the Alberta deal could be more linked to getting finance for existing projects, obviously there is say double NOI now to help fund organic growth or to service debt on good or at least better terms.
Do you think that the Serenity deal could be sweeter on the back of this i.e. a farm out on significantly better terms or possibly to include something for Liberator + Minos High? Secured on a company that now has NOI of 80 million and divi paying which was a key requirement for existing institutional backers?
Double NOI means we can look to grow from new acquisitions faster or develop existing projects using own cashflows or via debt that perhaps we couldn't get before...
Would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Having said that I do believe it is a good long term deal. Just annoyed I didn't sell at 16 p odd to buy back now. C'est las vie. It is def dilution in respect of the existing individual projects so the question is what blue sky potential is there if any on new project.
"Available on the PrimaryBid app only.
Please note that there are a limited number of shares available in this deal. If you apply for shares you may receive a partial or zero allocation in the event there is more demand than available supply.
"