Member Info for Muck165

JP - just with reference to your first post in this thread, in my experience companies like to give themselves headroom equivalent to roughly 25% of shares in issue each year, and they typically ensure this with standing agenda items at AGM's.

We didn't do it at the AGM, we are doing it now, and the 2.7m we are asking for is roughly 25% of the shares in issue.

All routine stuff imo.

That’s what I was thinking. Another ignorant question (!), but if the shares were issued without authority in December, could they be lawfully traded until the issue was ratified (even though admitted to the exchange)?

If yes, then what happens if shareholders refused to ratify?

If no, then it might explain the dump of stock today post the GM.

We’re getting somewhere! That’s precisely my point.

We issued 1,375,000,000 shares which were apparently admitted to trading in 19/12.

Resolution 1 at the GM was table to RATIFY that issue of stock.. Resolution 2 was tabled in respect of the warrants linked to that issue. The subsequent resolution relating to headroom was only added to the GM agenda later.

I am just trying to understand why a share issue apparently done in December needed ratification in a GM now.

Gordon, resolution 1 read

Resolution 1 - Ratification of issue of Placement Shares to clients of Novum Securities Limited

To consider and, if thought fit, to pass the following resolution as an Ordinary Resolution:

"That Shareholders ratify the issue of 1,375,000,000 new fully paid ordinary shares by the Company on the terms and conditions in the Explanatory Memorandum."

Resolution 2 related to the warrants. Neither related to the headroom, which was the new addendum to the agenda.

An ignorant question I know, but can anyone help me understand why the share issue in December needed to be ratified at the GM?

With you on this one Elegance. Would need to watch again but I’m sure he said it would not delay works. Could be wrong!

That's certainly an understandable position - Yates is well aware shareholders are frustrated by the lack of transparency yet seems to do little to address it. But personally I will be adding more when funds allow because this does seem to me to be a tanker that is turning and now moving in the right direction, with far more positives than negatives as far as I can see.

New survey published a couple of days ago

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240213/UK-patients-want-better-access-to-early-and-accurate-diagnostic-tests-survey-shows.aspx

Https://www.med-technews.com/news/medical-device-news/government-announces-%C2%A310m-to-help-eight-companies-bring-inno/

Confirms the ten companies given money by the NHS. It includes Upfront, as per my previous posts, but also 52 North which we are helping with their Neutropenia test.

It seems to me that there is an imbalance between test developers and CDMO's like us, which the developers need to advance their tests through to commercialisation, which means we get to pick and choose those we want to work with. The fact that 2 of our partners are just a select few receiving govt funding suggests we are choosing well.

Interesting to see Yates comment on the post too

"Excellent coverage of a really important innovation!"

Https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gonzalo-ladreda-06a903b8_healthcareinnovation-publicfunding-bbclookeast-activity-7163814784075829248-PWbg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

High hopes for this one....

For anyone interested

https://www.selanoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Regulation-30-Announcement.pdf

Agree - good post.

An ignorant question I know, but is there much involved in getting GOI approval/consent, and will it help at all that Selan got GOI approval iro what looks to me to be a similar transaction just 2 months ago?

https://www.selanoil.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Disclosure-under-Regulation-30.pdf

well i got caught a little too because i use advfn l2 and they posted the wrong rns (it was a previous update rns) so i top sliced only to wonder why the price then rocketed! as it’s panned out i needn’t have been worried, but i was ****ed at the time!

Well done Conger. Can’t criticise anyone for taking profits when they’re on offer.

I guess some have it in their head that a placing is coming tomorrow.

That seems daft to me.

If a raise was a condition of the deal, they wouldn’t have completed on it until at least after headroom had been given and most likely after a raise had been done.

Fair point!

Placings are always viewed negatively it seems.

But look at HE1. Raise undertaken at a massive discount to drill a well which then yielded fantastic results and a super uplift to the SP just a few weeks later.

I don’t think there will be an imminent raise here, but if there were and it was necessary to secure/progress a great JV resulting in an SP rise, then where’s the issue?

Placings to keep the lights on are one thing, but placings to significantly progress the business are quite another.

Just to be clear, I think the headroom resolution has been requested by the potential farminee so that it has comfort we have the ability to raise should that be necessary. I don’t think it means we will be raising imminently.

It is perfectly normal and routine for any company to ensure it has headroom, and indeed putting it in place each year is often a standing agenda item at AGM’s.

But that’s just my view!

“ partly through debt and partly through equity to be issued at a higher price than the current share price.”

Well I should blooming hope it would be above “current” share price because by then the consolidation will have been effected!