The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Ouch. Similar turnover than a corner shop, but with enormous losses on top. The company IMHO only has three assets
1. The listing
2. The 195M claim
3. er, that's it
No worries, Truro.
For all we know Eco will be a brilliant company. We will have to wait for the prospectus. But Fox floated as a start up (it had already been around a year or two I think but wasn't in production) in 2012 ish(?) and here we are almost 10 years later reversing into another start-up after a circa 95% share price fall.
I hope for all shareholders Eco will turn out to be a better business.
Companies house data is here https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13774419
if that does woth then google companies hosue 13774419
Under filings the confirmation statement from the 4th April shows LINDEN HOLDINGS LTD and GENARD KADIU as new shareholders, so hopefully they are putting in capital. We shall see.....
No the technology is 30 years old not the company!
"Technology acquired by Eco Buildings has been proven in the construction of high quality, affordable, low-and medium-rise residential and commercial buildings for well over 30 years"
The tech is pretty common to be honest - loads of companies do it.
I think that the company is a start-up with no factory, no employees other than directors, no customers, no membership of trade organisations, no VAT number (none on the website), no historical accounts, just three directors. I'm waiting for anyone to show this is not the case.
Companies house shows that the company is recently incorporated, is not a name change, and has very few assets.
Hi Truro
re: NotmuchinSales. "yet another deal with a recently set up company" Your on the wrong board or of your trolley.
When was eco buildigns set up? I think a couple of months ago.
What is the company number and VAT number?
Please correct me!
Domain Name: ECO-BUILDINGS.NET
Registry Domain ID: 2682309447_DOMAIN_NET-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.enom.com
Registrar URL: http://www.enomdomains.com
Updated Date: 2022-03-17T17:42:55Z
Creation Date: 2022-03-17T17:41:18Z
Oh dear
yet another deal with a recently set up company!
Hi Truro / rsproson, I asked Chris and he replied promptly and you are right. So I freely admit on that count I am wrong. They need over 500K for court fees, expert witnesses etc. Dentons are seemingly operating no-win no-fee.
Hi rsproson, I was an early investor in Fox and met Chris a couple of times, I discovered that Eboracum had ripped off a website from another firm investigated Scottt Oldfield, told Tom W all about it (and Banyan and a bunch of other stuff) and he called me a conspiracy theorist to my memory. Of course I was right.
IMHO anyone investing here should look at a good book on international arbitration, which I have. Put simply, Fox have to demonstrate loss of profits. Breaking the law simply doesn't matter and any financial reward will reflect real financial losses (there aren't any as Fox have demonstrated they cannot make a profit) and potential financial losses (can Fox demonstrate that they would ever have made a profit? I doubt it given the very suspicious IMHO string on RNS announcement of orders that never materialised).
I'm not scared for you, you are perfectly capable I suspect of making up your own mind and losing / making your own money (which of course basically everyone has done who ever invested in Fox and never sold).
If someone can convince me Dentons have done with on a no-win no-fee basis I will invest. I checked and I currently own 1 share which I bought so I could ask Chris what would be IMHO embarrassing questions at an AGM if I wished.
Can you substantiate your statement that Dentons are offering a "free carry"?
"Dentons have agreed a fee arrangement which enables Fox Marble to bring the Arbitration through to its conclusion."
not Dentons have agree a non-win no-fee arragement
" The Company has also secured firm commitments of a further GBP0.5 million ("Litigation Fund") in the form of litigation funding"
Not The Company has no need of litigation funding as Dentons are operating on a no win no fee basis
"The Litigation Fund and Placing, will allow the Company to complete the Arbitration proceedings"
Not "The company's balance sheet will not be affected should the arbitration fail"
GLTA. You're going to need it.
Hi Truro, Phone Chris and ask him "Are Dentons expected to receive any monies whatsoever prior to a successful win"
Amazing that a "no-win no-fee" agreement needs 1.5M of money to fund it....
Hi Truro
I only pop into this thread every few days. I only own a few share in Fox (about 10 I think) so I can potentially ask Chris embarassing questions next time I go to an AGM and I visit this thread for educational purposes and to do the right thing and expose questionable goings-on, not financial ones.
Thankfully (thnaks Perkylad) someone else answered. And the 0.5 million was a performance-based loan AFAIK.
"Solicitors have taken on this case without upfront payment " - how do you know that? Fox AFAIK had to raise circa 1.5M to fund the case.
I have to say I chose this NotMuch thing as a joke on you Fox holders (some years back I think now). Sadly it has turned out to be so very true.
...then you're only going to lose 2.2p per share rather than 2.265p!!
Buying 500,000 FOX MARBLE HLDGS PLC ORD GBP0.01 shares
The price quoted cannot be guaranteed until the order is confirmed.
Price£0.02265
No problem buying. I let the quote laspe BTW!!
This company is clearly in dire straits IMHO. Less turnover than an off-licence (I checked: uk.businessesforsale.com/uk/off-license-convenience-store-gbp-250-000-sav-for-sale.aspx)
I like a closed operation being "operational cash flow neutral"!!
People took shares because they have no cash, surely: I very much doubt it is accurate to call this "loading up"
GLTA: I'm amazed anyone is still here. I admore your perserverence.
Dentons have the most lawyers of any law firm, mostly it seems in China. The are not the largest law firm by revenue by some margin. Average revenue per lawyer is very low.
And Dentons not take it on on a no-win no fee basis.
I have read the details. Can you please say it is an open and shut case when: Fox have never made a profit, Fox have since inception vastly overstated orders and entered into some very dubious (IMHO) transactions in order to give the impression of orders (Eboracum and Banyan Stone for example which were never filled), Fox have entered into business deals with at least one character being chased by HMRC and the administrators of a failed business venture. Any decent lawyer will IMHO tear this company apart and demonstrate that they are unable to make profits, have struggled to accurately portray their business to the markets and have had to endlessly raise money since inception to syat afloat. Arbitration damages are rarely punitive - they relate to lost profits and there are no profits with Fox.
IMHO FOX will try and settle out of court knowing their very weak position. They may get a few million at most.
Happy to be wrong.
Try reading a book on international arbitration. It has everything to do with profits. They will be claiming based on lost profits mostly.
ouch
They can't get anyone to fund this on a no-win no-fee basis. As Dentons themselves say "in most instances, a third party (such as a litigation funding company) pays a litigant’s attorneys’ fees and other costs in exchange for an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit"
Fox can't do this hence their case must be very weak.
Oh, and there are hardly any sales.
Well Fox say "The basis of the claim for damages is the investment made to date in the Malesheva quarry, loss of future revenues associated with the site and future investment plans in Kosovo"
The book says "Your losses are likely to include one or more of the following:
• Loss of profits:...
• Wasted costs:...
• Loss of opportunity"
So Fox are maing a pretty standard claim as the standard three issues are being raised. Note they are not saying they are seeking damages just because the law was broken.
No investor on this board has come up with a valid argument why I am wrong that the case will succeed, as far as I can tell.
Can any investor here show why Fox should get some (a decent amount of)money? If they can then of course it might look like a very good investment.
Truro says " If the Kosovan Government broke their own laws then Fox has a case" but Fox themselves are not claiming damages for this. They are claiming consequential damages as a result of the law being broken and therefore have to demonstrate the consequences not the fact of illegality.
re 1: I'm not talking about ethics but International Arbitration. Read the book! It's quite clear to me that you have a point there on ethics.
2. I'm posting the truth as I see it. If I am saying anything that is not truthful please do let me know and I will make an apology and retract it of course.
Whether or not the board has been trolled in the past is to be blunt not my concern - I am unrelated to these people, if they exist, and I have no idea who they are. Given the nappalling performance of this company I am somewhat surprised it is possible to troll it! Have the trollers posts being show to be false? (I don't know, but I hope there was a rebuttal).
Whether or not I am "acting against the interest of Fox shareholders" is another point. I am pretty sure several people have sold out here at much higher levels at least partly based on my posts. I suspect therefore I was actually acting in their interests by saving them additional losses.
Are you implying I should not post honestly, accurately and legally and then with considered opinion so that existing shareholders can effectively win against the Kosovans? Personally I don't think that is ethical, if that if what you are saying, as I believe all legal cases should be based on full disclosure, and secondly I'm pretty sure the Kosovan lawyers will find all this out anyway I suspect. I would be very surprised if the judge said "Well, Chris you nearly got 195 million but a private investor posted some stuff on LSE so you're getting nothing".
I stress again If I have said something that is false please let me know. I will retract it and apologise if it is.
GLTA