The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I think it is actually £111m of losses rather than £12billion (11.1 billion pence). Still not an unsubstantial sum.
Off topic but whilst we are waiting for the big divi news does anyone have any stocks I can research for the next multibagger?
Luckily all my EUA shares are in ISA but I’ve made quite a significant capital gain on another share so looking to take a few gambles this tax year in the knowledge that any losses only reduce my tax bill and any gains are all upside (albeit that the tax bill will go up!)
Thanks!!!
If that is the case why didn’t they suspend tonight?
But they’ve got the offer so they must know what that price is? Even if they say we have had on offer of x which we are considering.
Sorry if I’ve missed it but any theories on why the potential acquisition price (and which assets) weren’t included in the RNS? Seems to me like that information is inside information that would have a significant effect on the price of the shares and should therefore be RNSed? Especially as we are no longer in the FSP?
Been a holder and a lurker for a long time ( main holding average at 1.68p). Unfortunately I need to sell this week as I’m exchanging on my dream home on Friday so need certainty!
Have decided to buy a token of my EUA journey so I always have a reminder (as well as my dream home!) and thought I would share as other holders might be interested.
https://www.georgjensen.com/en-gb/christmas/christmas-tree-star-toppers/top-star-large/3406000.html
Good luck all and hopefully the news drops before Friday.
Can’t work out the reason for a 20% drop. Thought it was a pretty positive update...
I think given 7 September RNS changed the year end to 31 March update will be in April but may be wrong.
For uninformed read timing. Not sure how that autocorrect happened!
Agree 5p it could be a permenant stay but doubt it would be granted as what would happen if by some miracle we wine the appeal. Would we then have to restart the case? Can’t see Cayman courts wanting that given their reputation for timing and cost efficiencies.
Star rage thanks for posting. My reading is that this is the judgement that we are taking to the court of appeal. So yes the injunction has been lifted but it was immediately reinstated until the court of appeal hearing. We knew this.
Not great reading for FRR but there is a lot in there about preliminary arguments etc which makes sense as the initial hearing was essentially an emergency one to get the injunction in place.
I think given the uninformed of the publication of this that my earlier post was probably close - I.e. hope has asked for the commercial case to be put on hold until the outcome of the court of appeal hearing as the current judgement makes it clear (sadly) that there is no case to be heard on any of the claims made by FRR.
Hope I’m wrong and today’s application is to stay proceedings for an OOCS as per the final paragraph of the judgement!
Haha! Easier for it not to be manipulated if the whole document is posted rather than snippets we pick and choose! Then we are as bad as the shorters just manipulating it to what we want!
Can you post it on here? Or on OneDrive like starrage
I just want to flag that it is entirely possible that Hope (or indeed FRR but not sure it would be in their interests) has brought the action to stay the proceedings until the court of appeal have heard the case re the injunction. His argument may be that the court has already effectively ruled on the matter by lifting the injunction on the enforcement of security and if the court of appeal uphold the lower court’s decision then there is no case for him to answer.
I hope it is for an OOCS but should be aware of the other potential reasons.
Was looking at jumping in a couple of weeks ago. Have I completely missed the boat? Seems there is still upside to be had here?
So are you saying there is more than just what YJ said (that injunction hearing is in February)? Appreciate you trying to find out more information but would have thought you could remember the general gist of your conversation with them yesterday...
Puddy - apologies if I’ve missed it (there have been a lot of posts today!) but can you just clarify exactly what you were told over the phone by the Cayman court? Fully appreciate that it was verbal and there is no guarantee it is correct and you were waiting for an email from them but just trying to fully understand what is going on (as much as we can) especially given there are two court cases with different hearing dates that may or may not have been intrinsically linked by the judges. Thanks for at least trying.
I thought we had all decided that the injunction was in place until a future date which was to be listed (i.e. announced) in January. So is the only real update that the appeal relating to the lifting of the injunction will be held in February (sooner than people thought based on when the appeal court sat last year)? Sorry just trying to understand what we have actually learnt (and thank you Puddy for even trying!!!)
Sorry I’m confused what’s the difference between what you found out and what we knew from the Christmas Eve RNS where we know the injunction remains in place until the appeal court hearing date?
Why was there no RNS on Friday? I appreciate there is a time difference but if the outcome of the hearing re the injunction was goven on Friday then surely that should have been RNSed?
My reading of the situation is that Hope won the case to dismiss the injunction, to which we then immediately said to the judge we want to appeal the decision and the judge reinstated the injunction until the appeal is heard (sometime in January). I don’t think the case re the injunction and the case re the fiduciary duties have been tied together by the courts as some people have suggested (although they are of course intrinsically linked).
Fingers crossed for a new NOMAD ASAP as that is more of a concern in a way at the moment!
Ivy - I don't think that the 250m shares from SN/ZM each is in lieu of the $2m interest payment, rather it was part of the enforcement action taken by Hope (see paragraph 50 of SN's affidavit) and would effectively give Hope control of Frontera International Corporation.
I may have got completely the wrong end of the stick and happy to be corrected!