Member Info for phenomenonnick

Gumbo given that Gunsynd’s price has gone sideways for a painfully long time now l, if the GUN board is ramping it they aren’t doing a good job of it! I’ve argued before that (at least) one board is wrong. The main two posters on GUN are an idiot who I filtered out ages ago, and Optimist, who makes no secret of the fact that he is a major investor there. He was in PLMO too but sold out at a big loss when we came back from suspension. I don’t really follow the inconsistency of thinking HH is amazing when running GUN but that PLMO is a disaster. Our planned RTO fell apart and it took way too long to spot it was a duff buy. But at least we didn’t buy it. Better than doing a deal and discovering afterwards it’s awful. Should HH quit here and let someone else have a go? If he’d rejected it sooner I’d say no, but it did take a while. I guess the major shareholders will determine it - will be interesting to see who those are post the open offer. But the clock’s ticking and if we’re distracted with boardroom battles we won’t find an RTO candidate and complete particulars in the time available. Either way though, HH isn’t the messiah, nor is he the Antichrist. You wouldn’t think it from reading these two boards though! I’m long both, but with less than 10% of my portfolio in each just in case.

Nope :)

Hmm. Took ten days to get the announcement out though!

Scotty - yes, it's in the FCA's DTR (Disclosure & Transparency Rules). It's meant to be announced as soon as possible, but for a UK issuer the shareholder is meant to notify the company (and the FCA) within two trading days from the date they became aware of the transaction, and you're deemed to know about it two days after it happened. The issuer must then announce by no later than the end of the following trading day. I make that a maximum of 6 trading days - buy Monday morning, the TR-1 should have been announced by the end of the following Monday. Of course, if the person who is meant to file a TR-1 doesn't know what they're doing or fails to notify the company of the trade I don't suppose the company can do much about it.

Peer I don't really get why you say the company is diluting below NAV. Other than the cash from the recent placing, The only assets are two loan notes with a face value at current exchange rates of �800k. Less �50k of loan notes in Jan is �750k, which I think we can safely assume raised cash that was needed for urgent bills. So NAV is fractionally below the 1p / 0.01p issue price, before taking into account the running costs, the cost of the placing, the aborted GM, the cost of the new GM, and the cost of the open offer. And that leaves no room for error if Oyster or Securlynx can't repay their loan notes. Plus of course since they know takeup won't be anywhere near 100% they had to shoot for a bigger number in the hope of getting at least the �140k that they'd planned for from the aborted Conditional Placing. And an Open Offer while cheaper than a Rights Issue is no doubt going to much more expensive than a placing. This route is fairer to all shareholders than the previous one, but more expensive and more time consuming. Clearly some shareholders didn't want the previous arrangement, this is the consequence of that decision. Shareholder democracy in action!

Willec - warrants info is in yesterday's RNS. For every share you buy you get a warrant. Peer - they don't say what Nigel Burton's role will be. Maybe that aspect is still being negotiated? Yes lots of new shares but new cash too.

Thanks Peer, hadn't noticed today is the ex-entitlement date. At least they're getting on with it. The assets are broadly equal to the share price and the issue price, so I don't really see it as dilution. At full subscription we would double in size, NAV stays the same but a higher proportion is cash. I would hope our Oyster loan note is safe but their AIM float seems to never arrive. I'm sceptical about our Securlynx loan note. Bear in mind it doesn't appear to be underwritten so I doubt they'll raise the full �760k or anything close to it. The warrants provide a strong incentive to get people to pony up cash, I'd say that's a better technique than the normal tactic of doing fundraisings at a discount.

I'm a fan, if it's well supported it gives us a proper amount of cash. Plus I get my warrants from the recent Placing which seems only fair as that was the basis on which I added to my holding. The warrants for all open offer subscribers is a strong incentive to invest. Of course it relies on Nigel Burton and HH being able to do a decent deal in an ever shrinking window, but I'm inclined to support.

Interesting that he appears to have bought them on 20 March but not notified the company until Friday. Meanwhile presumably discussions continue about what on earth happens next. Four and a half months of trading left to do a deal before we're suspended...

Hi Willec, as I’ve posted already, reading between the lines the GM was cancelled because the board knew the resolutions wouldn’t get passed. Doubtless behind the scenes negotiations are happening about who takes over and how the company is getting funded. I’ve had the Conditional Placing element of my recent investment cancelled and the cash is back in my account. Given the time constraints I felt “better the devil you know” but let’s hope “the devil we don’t” gets appointed quickly and can find a decent RTO candidate on good terms before we run out of time...

I guess so! Presumably the placing agreement allows the contract to be rescinded if the company is unable to meet its end of the bargain. Seems the most obvious redress. Hopefully the company hasn’t spent the cash and doesn’t run out before it finds alternative funds.

Thing is Peer, I do get that not all RTO candidates survive the due diligence process unscathed - and this one I feel should have been ditched far sooner than it was. My concern is what happens now - I only had a tiny holding here, and massively averaged down in a bigger investment through the recent Placing and Conditional Placing. Now it appears the latter is cancelled and the former is up in the air (I invested because I got 1:1 warrants that it now appears I can't have). So it's not just the RTO which is a mess, feels like there's a risk of a fight between investors, all costing the shareholders cash and more importantly distracting us from getting a new deal done.

Well this is pretty painful! If the resolutions are being withdrawn the board knows they wouldn't have passed. Clearly HH's days here are numbered. Instead of the existing placing we get a different issue of shares to slightly different people. We just spent a bunch of cash organising and cancelling a GM. Who knows how long it takes to put a new board in place and whether they have something decent in the offing. Meanwhile, the clock's ticking. What a mess.

Yes, I think Willec and Peer you're both right - we don't have one ready, we need one to move forward. The question is, do we trust the board to get it right having screwed up the last one. We don't know the detail of why it failed but I would hope we've walked away because we found something in the due diligence which suggested it was no good. Unfortunately we now have a strict deadline to do an RTO, my concern is that failing to back the current board leads to wasting that precious time. Hence I'm a reluctant supporter.

Surely not. How would that work? I get how a private company does an RTO, but Oyster is quoted in Toronto. Nothing I've seen anywhere says Oyster is moving from Toronto to London, just that they want an AIM listing - the implication being this is in addition to the Toronto listing. So like lots of dual quoted companies, it's surely got to be the same entity which floats. In order to do an RTO, a load of Canadian investors would have to sell their TSX-quoted stock for PLMO shares, and, if they want to trade in Canada, PLMO would have to apply to list in Toronto. What a hassle! Surely Oyster simply applies to list its shares on AIM as a new issue. I would have thought Oyster is one case where an RTO really isn't the right route.

Not sure - think the Placing has been completed, the Conditional Placing needs a positive vote at the AGM at the start of April. I've paid for my Placing shares but not my Conditional Placing shares.

Probably because placing shares got credited today and selling for an instant 40% profit is a staggering return by this share’s recent standards.

Then we are probably screwed. But voting against the current resolutions doesn’t make success more likely, and changing the board is a high risk strategy given the clock is ticking. Have you looked at the GUN board? They adore Hamish. This is what was behind my earlier post that led me to filter out draft - the GUN board act like Hamish is Warren Buffet, this board acts like he’s Bernie Madoff. The reality is neither extreme. Everyone makes mistakes and Securlynx was clearly one. If half the investments he’s made at GUN come off he’s capable of finding us a decent RTO candidate the second time around. That’s my thinking anyway - but I’m here because I’m open to persuasion on a better way forward. Just feels like no-one has one at present.

Willec what kind of control do you envisage? The only control I can see us sensibly exercising is to change board members. That said I'm deeply concerned that, given the clock is ticking, a boardroom fight is the last thing the company needs. I would hope the advisors would recognise they need to find us a decent RTO candidate, and do so sharpish. The board usually seems to change on completion of an RTO anyway.

Oh and in the interests of full disclosure I’m a long term holder of 20m shares at painfully higher prices than this, who is buying 110m placing shares to average down, and will buy some conditional placing shares if that goes ahead. So I’m by no means unbiased. Though for the reasons I’ve stated a few days ago I do think raising a decent amount is a sensible precaution.