Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Definitively, the entire process
Sadly, Robin Dicker, Amigo's original counsel passed away
https://southsquare.com/robin-dicker-qc/
The company itself has been surprised its taken so long. Company said they expected approval/go ahead mid Sept https://www.investis-live.com/amigo/60ec6b4f2527a91600474b1e/fy21. I've held a chunk but no question this is way behind management's expectation
@german1 that is not what the judge said nor how it works. A new convening and a new scheme is required to go forward albeit it could be similar to SOA 1. See https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5fe0507e2c94e062daae2347
@gruntie this is semantics between SOA 1.1 and SOA 2. Either way, the SOA has to go back to an initial convening hearing and then a vote and then a sanction. To get to the covening hearing, I say, AMGO need the FCA nailed down this time. It can't risk a non sanction. For an example see the only other recent rejection - Sunbird. Sunbird SOA 2 was "near identical" and it still required - refusal to sanction on 18 Sept 2020, covening hearing 2.0 on 28 October 2020, vote on 20 Nov 2020 and sanction on 16 Dec 2020. So it will take a minimum of 3 months from now to get SOA 1.1 or SOA 2.0 (it is the same thing) sanctioned. I would suggest, that because there is more complexity here in the difference required, it will take longer to get to the covening hearing than 6 weeks. And Summer will also be in the way from a court perspective. So I think we are looking at Q4 at the earliest for sanction of any revised scheme.
See reference to all of this in the sanction of Sunbird including reference to a "near identical" second SOA. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5fe0507e2c94e062daae2347
@Cardinal59 - there is no such thing. Either SoA 1 is sanctioned on appeal because the judge applied the law incorrectly or its a SoA 2.
- Likely RNS re an appeal (probably application for permission from the CofA rather than permission from Miles) - positive but by no means decisive. Could/should come in next 48 hours.
- If appeal granted, at best 50:50 to succeed. Presume expedited application to CofA given AMGO's story re doubtful viability
- If appeal fails or not granted, into Plan B
- Plan B must be to extend various standstills/waivers with bond holders/FCA
- Negotiation with FCA as to what they would need to sign a "non-objection" letter - can't have FCA risk in second SoA
- Negotiate with reps of creditors for second SoA
- Second SoA put to creditors
- Months of process - some good upside potential but plenty of risk
- Finally sanctioned before Nov/Dec 2021
- Or if AMGO was not bluffing, if appeal is rejected or no permission granted, admin is possible
Thanks. Negative implications. Would have been better with same judge I think
Source?
where is this confirmed? link please
it may or not be the same judge. no guarantees. very important if it is - increases chances of sanction materially IMO
One thing to brace yourselves for is a reserved judgment. It seems likely that in this case, even if it is obvious the Court will sanction the SoA, it will want time to consider and construct the judgment. This could lead to a hiatus of a week or so (could be more or less) after 19 May. There is an argument for the Company to suspend on the morning of 19 May (possible I have missed that this is the plan). Either way, a reserved judgment is not necessarily bad news but it is bound to be misinterpreted and lead to some more volatility in the price."
No way the sanction is 50/50. Very unusual for a sanction to be rejected. Would need to have been a very serious issue with the options presented to creditors such that the judge couldn't feel comfortable with the fairness. So not from deliberate concealment, misleading announcements or omissions. Given the quality of the lawyers, this is very unlikely. So not a 50:50 call. Far more likely than that.
@sharelover123 -
We haven't seen the letter yet (and I think this is a disgrace from both the company and the FCA (who published their earlier letter)). But the it is unlikely that FCA are claiming a failure in the comms. The court will not assess Plan Bs. It is not its job
The case is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/3470.html
This is key: "Thirdly, when considering the question of fairness, the court, of course, takes account of (but is not bound by) the views expressed at the scheme meeting. Of longstanding is the enunciation of the principle by Lindley LJ in Re English, Scottish and Australian Chartered Bank [1893] 3 Ch 385 at 409, but it bears repetition in the context of this case. Lindley LJ said of the creditors' scheme before the Court
"If the creditors are acting on sufficient information and with time to consider what they are about and are acting honestly, they are, I apprehend, much better judges of what is to their commercial advantage than the Court can be. I do not say it is conclusive, because there might be some blot in a scheme which had passed that had been unobserved and which was pointed out later. While, therefore, I protest that we are not to register their decisions, but to see that they have been properly convened and have been properly consulted and have considered the matter from a proper point of view, that is with a view to the interests of the class to which they belong and are empowered to bind, the Court ought to be slow to differ from them. It should do so without hesitation if there is anything wrong; but it ought not to do so, in my judgment, unless there is something brought to the attention of the court to show that there has been some material oversight or miscarriage."
This is key - recent SoA case
https://www.juriosity.com/knowledge/article/8c6e48db-f9f3-4cad-bfb5-d5a0af6d2c03
"Sir Alastair stressed that his task was not to say whether the scheme before him was the best scheme possible. He commented that perhaps the scheme might have been improved by a contingent valuation right, but that he was somewhat sceptical as to that.
As a basis for challenge, he said that the ability to object, at the sanction hearing, to a scheme approved at the court meeting is not conferred to see whether some better deal might be negotiated. While, commercially, that was the objective of the Objectors, it was not the question with which the court was ultimately concerned at the sanction hearing. The only question with which the court is concerned is whether the scheme actually presented to it is such as might reasonably be approved by an honest and intelligent shareholder."
Thoma22 never replies with real details????
Thomas - how can I find oout more? which law company
Thanks Thomas. Iam intereested in this. Which company is this with? Any links?
Ive red the RNSS. Grumpy - are you saying we wont get a refund of all winnings in all companys we have sold for the last 5 ? years? What about dividnds for shares I sold 4 years ago. Am I still going to be able to claim those. Its so confusing. THANKS