Valju, the company announced the placing before the last vote on the consolidation and the dis application of pre emptive rights etc. And VAL said that the voting rights wouldn’t apply to that meeting. There was nothing mentioned about the new shares not being able to vote on the next meeting to remove the directors.
The shares will have by then been fully admissable and possibly even sold off ( I doubt it as I hear there has been an agreement not to dump the majority until after the next vote.)
If they are able to sell/trade those shares, then how would the company be able to restrict the voting rights on them after they have been admitted and able to be traded to the second hand shareholders ?
The rns states that another one of the many restrictions and caveats that the new broker has placed on the company is that they are not allowed to do any further placings, raisings or anything dilutive until the current situation is resolved and the new broker is in receipt of the new shares, which will guarantee that they will not be diluted before they are able to offload/forward sell them
Win win for them after they have taken their fees !
Bank fool, to answer some of your questions You asked:
“ I doubt that the funds raised will be instantly consumed in wages. If that was the case why aponit a new broker?”
By law the company has to retain a broker and one of the many conditions this new broker insisted on was that it acted as the sole broker going forward.
“Also confused by the news article that the shares had been issued to "new shareholders". How do you know? What does new mean? It seems if they really are "new" in the sence that they have never held shares in Val before “
The rns states that the new broker is the entity that is providing 100% of the cash for the placing and as any prudent person owning 31.5% of a company would do to save said company, they have insisted on installing their own director.
As the new broker is the new owner of the new shares, they are the ‘new investor’ that the rns refers to.
Tired - why on earth should any credit be given to the BOD for ‘not throwing in the towel’
The married couple are raking in literally hundreds of thousand a year off the back Aims worst performing company. They are obviously much better off financially if the company limps on for a few more months. It is now obvious that no one is even remotely interested in any of the compounds (even at these distressed prices)
If any credit is due to them it should be for their astounding decimation of shareholders funds whilst as the same time taking home ever growing salaries and bonuses, and for that they should give themselves a pat on each other’s back.
Valju, I do agree with you that Suzy would be an ideal replacement for both George and satu in the absence of time and other suitable candidates (she could easily do both their daily work in about 3 hours).
However there is absolutely no sign of budging from George or satu, they will hang on until they are forced out but now this agm, consolidation and placing has been forced upon the company I fear that all the new voting shares will be used to vote yes to all and any resolutions which will result in no change at all for the foreseeable future.
So we are stuck with more of the same until either the company goes bust or another EGM is called.
Don’t forget that the new broker (placee) has reserved the right to cancel the placing right up to the day before admission if the price drops or or the general state of the market changes or if they simply just want to change their mind and offer a lower price or cancel it.
It’s win win for them with possibly false hope for the shareholders.