Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Agreed, Banburyboy (was about to post the same about the views on here re: the expensive 'deal' terms which were overwhelmingly negative about it) so what might the 'big boys' who assented to it, been made privy to, that us ordinary Pi's were not?
I liked NewK's posts on the 3rd Feb about the possibilities of a 'grand plan' which might explain it in lending credence to what / why Serica agreed to it, especially the 28% stake in the combo that Mercuria will end up with which was very controversial to say the least!
Perhaps, a pleasant outcome will ultimately transpire as you / we all hope that our initial views on it will prove misguided due to insufficient awareness of the 'raison detre' for it - sasa.
Gone nowhere over the past decade but now things might be changing, at last?
With them out of plastics nowadays as demand for cardboard packaging gathers momentum, in lieu, the outlook seems a good deal more promising for the Co today and the latest results were encouraging, certainly...
Statistically cheap with a decent yield, the shs seem overlooked to me / good value right now in these fickle mkt conditions and the overseas developments in hand can only reinforce their appeal as a 'safe haven', imv - sasa.
Encouraging thoughts there of what might possibly lie ahead, NewK, especially referencing Robert Lawson's sudden move across to Serica.
Without such a 'grand plan', the outlook seems very questionable, to say the least; still can't grasp the reasons nor the terms for it, otherwise - sasa.
for crashing our sp by -45% over the past 4 months. Even they must be able to gauge what's caused this calamitous reaction, given our robust condition hitherto!
Capital destruction, par excellence, when there's been no reason for it whatsoever, other than rank stupidity - sasa.
Thanks Visitor for fleshing out many aspects of this derisory deal for us holders which most of us on here have amply conveyed our dismay, nay disbelief, in proceeding with it on such dilutive terms for Serica's shareholders.
Which begs the question - 'Why have our BoD been so keen to pursue it, as things stand'?
The rebalancing of our production, if the Board still wish to chance our arm in domestic waters, despite the increased risks of doing so, might be laudable from our overweight reliance on gas henceforth but everything has its price and what's envisaged currently is way over the top!
Having been regularly slated for not doing anything proactive with our bloated cash pile, doing a deal , any deal, at any price, cannot be the answer, bearing in mind it flies in the face of their mantra of 'not overpaying' for acquisitions that they've touted for so long.
I dunno - perhaps they've just lost it and want out? - sasa.
Echo that, NewK - you'd have thought that, with all the opprobrium heaped upon the BoD since this proposal was announced, they'd at least re-examine what they're attempting to do, unless 'the interests of shareholders' (who own the Co. after all) mean nothing to them now - sasa.
That's sadly so true these days, chinch - have to agree with that; getting elected whatever it takes and staying in power is their sole objective. Pathetic leadership, not unlike our BoD in the present situation, one has to say - sasa.
Like just about every poster on here, I've got my 'No' vote in, applicable on several holdings and hope this controversial 'deal', comprising too much, to my liking, on the questionable tax losses secured or otherwise, is defeated.
If it is, then the sp should recover quite sharply, given removal of the uncertainty, the opportunities to do something more proactive away from the NS and the onerous tax burden inflicted on the present operators and not forgetting the bumper 2022 results to be announced in April.
But what if the deal is forced through? How will the sp react, then? All views welcomed on that one - sasa.
Hi RELLIM - yes, MF came across quite well, I thought.
Promoting a problematic deal (on respective valuation grounds as much as anything else for most on here, anyway) couldn't have been an easy task but Serica's big holders will obviously determine the voting outcome in a fortnight's time...
If they're as perturbed by the anticipated amount of equity issuance as me, then that'll be blocked and stymie the deal as it stands which might then result in a re-negotiation of that 'sticking point' to make for a more balanced arrangement between the parties.
Where there's genuine goodwill on both sides, an acceptable accommodation can be reached but where there's not, then better that be known now than later on, surely?
Keep well and keep safe, too - sasa.
Apparently so, shakey - my concern, like many others on here, is that the current terms gets Mercuria and their Tailwind founders right up to the blocking near 30% level and that's an invidious position for Serica to be in henceforth, imv...
Serica's main strength right now is their enviable cash pile; using more of that surplus liquidity / less equity issuance (perhaps half of what's presently offered) would be more appealing to us shareholders, making the overall deal, if it's to proceed, more acceptable.
If Mercuria baulks at that, then walk away / look elsewhere - sasa.
Great digging, Infor - the more you've unearthed, the more this stinks...
Can't really believe that ACW, being so long and highly regarded in the O&G Industry, has put his name to such a controversial venture - it's so much out of character for him, imho - sasa.
from shareholders on here, re: this clearly one - sided deal at Serica's expense, suggests that this is no more than a retirement deal for the senior Board members, which will be a tragic outcome for the owners of the company, if it succeeds, to say the least...
That it should be abandoned by blocking the planned equity issuance by shareholders, is a 'given' in my book - just hope the major shareholders agree to use their voting powers to do so and thereby protect their investment and ours, too - just my own view at this stage - sasa.
Yep, good points there, NewK re: the short term implications of this 'Trojan horse' type deal we're confronted with here, as things stand.
I've tried to look at what we know so far, as objectively as possible but just about every aspect of this deal is slanted in Tailwind's / Mercuria's favour to me, which raises the $64K question : -
Why have Serica's Bod agreed to such a one - sided deal and on such paltry terms for us shareholders who'll pay the price for it? Merely to 'feather the nests' of the senior outgoing Serica team? Surely not, after all their long and successful stewardship of this company!
DTP raises many of the same questions I'm asking myself and we can only hope that the major shareholders / Instos etc., will be doing the same, as they'll have a bigger say in the outcome here than us PI's, of course - otherwise... sasa.
Yes, Barry - as NewK rightly pointed out, a cash deal doesn't involve gaining near control over our company which Mercuria look to be after, winding up with having some 28% of the equity, as things stand - a very ominous sign that for the present holders - sasa.