Member Info for neuronaut

Ah ... ok ... maybe you a right ... i was confused by the table ... then ignore all my posts ...

sorry but i am not from an English spoken country ... and i am not used to tables where one currency is placed on top and then suddenly one position is in another currency ... my bad .. so then it looks much better ...

however, i read somewhere else also that the net asset value stands at 25 pence a share ... so i am wondering what is corectt now

however, you are correct: it says 114m AD and 114m shares outstanding thus 1 AD per share and thus 50 pence (UK) ...

ok ... then there is hope for the share price ... sorry my bad ... i cannot delete my posts but will try to report myself

nevertheless: at least you need to deduct around 30% from the 50 pence and then maybe fair value is around 35 pence

I should add: sure, i am here valuing cases under appeal with 5%, which is the probability LCM gives Poland to make a successful appeal in Green-X case.

Well said @Forensics505

Go to RNS "Annual Results" - search for "appeal at costs" you find the paragraph:

"We are now taking the approach of holding such cases within a range of 50-60% of cost (see further detail below) as opposed to the prior approach of holding such losses under appeal at cost."

How much is under appeal you see in the table just above this paragraph. Its in my understanding 46m GBP. Lets assume we have to write off another 22m GBP, what is the effect on NAV? We can go to the NAV table where the derived

- now 114.4m - 22m - 10m (the new UK commercial case loss) = 80m or a deduction of around 30%

- thus NAV of 50p (diluted) - 30% is 35pence per share - now

Now here comes the "fun" part: this is of cause Australian Dollars ... so then 35p convert to around 17 British pence

This is not much compared to yesterdays closing price of 12 GBp

The MOIC will also be lower than x1.3.

Now the issue is: we have liquidity risk. The operating expenses are shown in the annual report of 16m GBP. Yes, they are trying to cut it. 9m GBP cash. so i understand the statement:

"Directors have concluded that a material uncertainty exists which may cast significant doubt on LCM's ability to continue as a going concern."

When does the GreenX cash inflow come?

Sure, you can bank on Panthera Case, but this will take some time ... the counterparty had not even file their response yet. That would be an exit.

In the meantime: Yes, the waiver exists, but - as the CFO said - it upon the creditor if the trigger gets pulled.

so i am also out.

Please if you find calculation errors or error in how i understand the annual report , please let me know. Always happy to learn.

LCM is a litigation funder in general. In the case of Transworld Payment - and if there is indeed a connection - its questionable which lawyers they fund. If you scroll this post here you will see a post that the lawyers were not very diligent in this case:

https://x.com/fabreres

Where i see hope for an appeal: the judge said the claims itself are valid. Quote:

"Nevertheless, I have held that HMRC had valid VAT Claims against the following eleven MTIC Companies and that FCIB assisted the MTIC Directors of those companies to commit breaches of fiduciary duty which caused those companies to incur the following liabilities to HMRC:

(1) Kingswood: £387,864.87;

(2) MTL: £587,788.53;

(3) MML: £4,443,565.00;

(4) 385 North: £40,513,355.54;

(5) Eliyon: £455,360.09;

(6) Gold Digit: £1,231,524.20;

(7) Northdata: £7,713,261.39;

(8) ETP: £2,735,986.82;

(9) Wood Works: £9,004,904.84;

(10) JDG: £1,246,736.17; and

(11) @tomic: £2,083,422.86."

The size of these claims are astonishing.

The 300 pages of history of this case are very complex. Basically the judge argues that Transworld Payment Solutions is not the correct claimant ... I have the feeling there should be room for an appeal. however, the tone of argument of the judge try to rule out an appeal by implying

that TWPS (Transworld Payment Solutions, the claimant itself!) assisted the MTIC directors of 9 of those companies in committing fiduciary breaches.

however, it seems there is a lot of room for an appeal however, costly. on the other side it would lift the value from zero to some expected value.

next instance: Court of an Appeal

then: UK Supreme Court

@clintek - questioning the person is not a good argument ... give counter-arguments without talking about the person/user names

let me add to my concerns though:

Given that LCM announced today another loss (UK commercial case with 9.9GBP own capital + 6.1 GBP from fund1):

1. Has the company breached any debt covenants due to the latest losses?

2. Does management expect that the company can access new debt financing under acceptable conditions, or will equity injections be required?

3. What concrete steps is management taking to restore the company’s status as a going concern?

Given the current win/loss ratio, does management see x2 MOIC as sufficient to cover losses, operating costs, and overhead, or is the target to increase the average MOIC closer to x3 to ensure sustainable profitability?

(this would imply negotiating higher MOIC into future deals)

Would it not be more effective to strengthen the ex ante internal legal review process to the same quality standard as independent evaluators, instead of relying mainly on ex post independent reviews after capital has already been committed?

Oh my gosh:

CASH is only 9 m GBP ... which means going concern (or bankrupcy risk) could be a real issue given that the latest loss (today) is not reflected. sure the latter is only a P&L write off however, we need to see cash inflows soon.

end of 2024: around 50 m cash and only 9 m debt ...

end of 2025: around 50m net deb and only 9 m cash

this is of cause a going concern problem.

@shearclass: yep , that my view too... problem: it will get more difficult to raise money ... and even lets say the win:loss ratio is 1:1 in future .. then this is just break even with MOIC 2:1 since you need to cover running costs , pay back debt etc. of course i am simplifying here since it depends on the volume of the wins:losses ... however, currently they are far away from a 1:1 so the risk of becoming illiquid in the meantime can be an issue

yes ... lets tune in to the investor presentation in 8 minutes and i am excited to listen to the Q&A at the end.

insider buys would be of course the best signal currently

I think they need more than 1 win ... because there will be losses too ... 95% win rate is all history .. since 6 losses in a row you need to adjust this statistic ... and then ... is 2x MOIC enough (which seems some kind of average) ... if you lose 2 and win 1 then this is still a loss due to overhead and running costs ... you either need to get a better win:loss ratio or you need to adjust the MOIC during negotiation before committing to a case. 2x MOIC seems not sufficient anymore ... i hope the strategic review will show this and they need at least to negotiate 3x or 4x into future deals

BTW we are just one day into the month october and already this month shows a record volume of >10m shares which has never been traded before on a monthly basis ... so pretty big rotation

Yes... they have cash at hand ... but what about the 77 million debt ? how to finance running costs > 15m pa if they are not able to get inflows in the near future?

Difficult to say if overshot ... in the annual result RNS they say .. one more adverse event and their credit condition worsen ... if worse comes to worst this is a debt event triggering repayment to borrowers. They have 77 million on their balance sheet.

moreover i have no clue what impact it has if they have to abandon their "going concern" principle. i have no clue what this means for their entity construction with all those funds as separate entities.

they banked on the exit with positive new from this commercial case in UK, which the RNS just few hours later said, is lost.

Thus they will have to write off another loss in their balance sheet which is not yet taken into account.

It will take some time until they see money from Green X.

So currently i do not see any positive inflows in the near term. Liquidity risk, Credit risk ... they have ongoing payments to do (12 million p.a. only for employees)

so maybe LCM is now completely dead. I hope i understand the annual report correctly but its around 70+ million they burned + the new loss of todays RNS

if anyone of you see positive in the near term please write them down. I need some optimism.

I will definetly tune in at 2pm London time this afternoon into the investor presentation.

I believe the drop is attributed to the latest performance of Coors. Coors does not publish a breakdown of it numbers.

it seems that currently Coors does not grow its revenues ... the question is: is this attributed to classic drinks (beer, energy with aluminium) or also to feverdrings (which i believe are served in glass bottles?).

So we will see tomorrow ... i read elsewhere that the Beyond Beer strategy of Coors performed well ... so it could be that feverdrinks perform well despite the revenue drop of Coors ... we will see tomorrow

https://nypost.com/2025/08/05/business/molson-coors-slashes-outlook-again-blames-trump-aluminum-tariffs/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Hi miningforgold, Thanks very much for your understanding and for taking action to request the post deletion—I really appreciate it.

The CV is public on LinkedIn, of course, but I have to admit it felt a bit unusual to see it shared on a stock forum like this. No hard feelings—just a learning moment for me about how quickly information travels online!

Sorry for any confusion or inconvenience, and best wishes to everyone here.

@miningforgold – I noticed that my detailed CV was posted in your recent message. I would appreciate it if you could remove that information, as I prefer not to have my full professional history shared publicly. Thank you for your understanding.

Subject: Clarification Regarding My LinkedIn Comment!!

Hello everyone,

I’ve seen some speculation about my LinkedIn comment on David Brown’s post. To clarify:

I am not an insider or advisor to FPP or any affiliated company. My comment was purely a personal observation based on public information. I have no non-public or privileged information and am not involved in their operations. To avoid further misunderstanding, I have deleted my LinkedIn comment. Please do not interpret my comment as investment advice or insider knowledge.

Please do not make any investment decisions based on my comment or the speculation around it—I would not want anyone to lose money because of misunderstandings or rumors.

Best,

Niko Wrede