Sapan Gai, CCO at Sovereign Metals, discusses their superior graphite test results. Watch the video here.
Apollo may be very well funded but they may not be the smoothest operators when it comes to buying their prey.
Exhibit: Woods plc--- initial bid in January 200p -- 4 months later, and now on 5th proposal 240p is their latest bid.
So, we may either have repeated step movement action re: their THG bid--- say 150p then 175p then 188p then 195p for example or if they don't want to repeat the chasing---they might have to go large---from the off. I dream of 200p plus--- but I suspect I am being overly optimistic.
Chaiwala, let's agree to disagree, like grown ups. I hear what you say but I think you are manifestly wrong.
And though I am humble enough to know I make mistakes, it doesn't mean I, or others who respectfully disagree, should be characterised as idiots. Best wishes!
I ll keep my 4m shares in a dusty drawer for now-- in wistful hope that the scheming owners know what they are doing.....
Trout, thanks for taking the time to explain some issues, as a holder of 4m shares, it might not be what I want to hear but you have clearly given some thought to this. I now expect to write these off as a complete loss, I might frame the share certificates as a reminder to do do my homework more thoroughly!
With a few million of these shares, I would love that to happen but I am not that optimistic. If I see 0.32 I'd probably be out.
My concern is that to achieve its great plans, DKE will need ever more capital and share dilution.
Gallows humour that lot. Have a look at what is opposite Peter Doyles correspondence address.
@Billclinton
That's a shocker.
Btw here is a reminder of ING's compliance pledge from their website.
ING is committed to the preservation of its reputation and integrity through compliance with applicable laws, regulations and ethical standards in each of the markets in which it operates. All employees are expected to adhere to these laws, regulations and ethical standards, and management is responsible for ensuring such compliance. Compliance is therefore an essential ingredient of good corporate governance.
The classic line : NQ Mineral's Chairman, David Lenigas, said; "This refinancing facility with ING represents the culmination of nearly a year's extensive due diligence with both the bank and Traxys.
Nearly a year of DD and a major Investment Bank did not realise they obtained security through deception? As normal citizens, we wouldn't buy a house without checking the vendor had the right to sell it.
The other thing that puzzles me...if you subordinate bond holders,in return for their lower security , it's customary to offer something in return---- higher coupon, shorter maturity, redemption et al---.
Not just 100% losses, talking of which what os it that the board claims the bondholders received in lieu of subordination?
@Johanes
I think ING would have been aware, these guys are used to dealing with less scrupulous types:
And as you know:
NQ Minerals PLC : March 3rd 2020 on their facebook page:
US$60 million debt refinancing agreement – Hellyer Mine NQ
NQ Minerals Plc – 2 December 2020 -- Their Press release: –" (AQSE:NQMI, OTCQB:NQMLF,
OTCQB:NQMIY) (“NQ” or the “Company”) is pleased to confirm that, further to yesterday’s
release announcing execution of the US$55m loan facility between its subsidiary Hellyer Gold
Mines Pty Ltd and ING Bank N.V. (the “ING Facility”), that all necessary conditions precedent
for drawdown of monies against this facility have been satisfied. As a consequence, the ING
Facility has been fully drawn with proceeds being used to retire Company debt maturing in
2020"
In old money,thats 9 months for ING to examine , lick , caress and strip search every nook and cranny regarding this deal. With an army of compliance workers, 9 months is enough for ING to know all there was to know. Claims the facilityit was used to retire all debt maturing in 2020 suggests other debtors were higher ranking than the secured bondholders---I wonder, who are these entities?
I think putting pressure on the bank that has the bond's collateral is the quickest resolution for reasons which I won't bore you with.
As to your wider point, it really is quite fustrating all these SPVs that seemingly only favour the borrower, it really makes this alternatives space an untrustworthy quagmire. Speaking to a guy today, on UK parlimentary committee for collapsed financial schemes, 80 cases in the intray currently.
Strategically, legal cases are a pain in the proverbial. Perhaps,the quickest tactical resolution is bringing pain on the institutions who stand to lose the most, moral, financial or reputational.
I would argue any investment bank seen to be short changing bondolders whether by design or lack of proper due dilligence procedure may ultimately prefer to settle rather than have their very business ethos examined in court. They are supposed to be paragons of virtue, especially when European and British tax payer funds have been used multiple times to support them.
As I said earlier, I fail to see how any serious financial institution would not query the quality and ownership of any collateral offered in lieu of a large loan facility. The compliance & risk teams in banks run into the thousands. If the DD process was correctly undertaken, it would be easy to recognise the moral and ethical dilemmas that would occur, in taking over collateral without a proper and transparent vote. The reputational risk is not worth it for multi-billion Euro organisations. And if the process was crooked from within the bank, then it really does open up a can of worms for them.
I get the feeling, one is going to have something very close to or equal to libellous about Lenigas and his merry crew to goad a reaction and the legal exposure, this affair requires.
I mean if you try to take an extremely generous view and say NQ's board were in over their heads and they mistakenly double pledged the bondholders' security, it would sound like I was talking about my
8 year old niece rather than supposedly sophisticated business people.
And surely the bank when offered the security must have asked how for such an indebted company, no one else had claims on those assets, worse when they were told the bondholders had voted to lower their security, did they not ask how and why? Is that not why banks have huge compliance departments? I mean all these organisations have corporate mantras about being fair in business. Now I am not letting the board off, but as the most sophisticated investor in the room, how could the bank, think this was a fair deal that would not have ethical repercussions later? HEADLINE:Large bank takes away bondholders security without making an offer or scrutinising vote but thinks its legal. I mean think about it, you don't buy a house without checking its the vendor's to sell!
@latvianPrince, thanks for revealing these machinations, which unfortunately have a serious dose of credibility. At the time of the proposed refinancing I was carrying our DD on the bond for some investors and delayed any decision till there was some clarity. The distrubutor at the time mumbled something about first vote not having enough bodies and a need to recovene later. The weird thing is if you were ING and thinking ethically, why not make an offer to buy out bondholders who you presumably knew had mine assets as security, unless you planned a sleight of hand (even for a bank that would be low) or you were misled by the board? Double pleding security is the bane of the alternatives world.
What lessons we can infer from this sorry mess? I think from this there are a few things I will use as red flags going forward :
1 Frequent director changes.
2 Consistently soft share price in the face of supposedly good news.
3 Directors who aren't really prepared to invest their cash in a business.
4 Unclear debt position.
5 Management with previous bad reputation.
6 Arm lengths companies that are considered close when investing but pushed far when the proverbial hits the fan, eg Audley (now just a another creditor) and Hellyer now saying NQ Minerals' debt nowt to do with them.
7 Talk of main board listings that never marerialise.
Latly, I promise myself to get a real understanding of the processes and tricks directors use to subordinate bond holders' rights.