The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Billions
You have managed to contradict your own statement in the same post? ;
The FSP was never a full company sale. See RNS extract the argument does not stand that they exited the FSP to do an asset sale, this was in the original scope.
"The Board has therefore decided to appoint UBS Investment Bank in London ("UBS") as its leading financial adviser to assist in a review of its strategic options including asset sales or a sale of the company"
Clearly a "sale of the company" WAS a consideration of the strategic options (as stated in the RNS and your post) that UBS were brought on board to consider. However having been in the FSP for nearly 12 months the BOD have decided that an asset sale is the best strategic option to provide best value.
Mumbo_Jumbo
FSP has closed because a full company sale isn't on the cards. Its now an asset sale, as stated in the RNS. Clearly stating 'substantial'. Eurasia will continue in some form or another which is the main debate. What's being sold, for how much, which as the RNS states will provide a substantial dividend and what will look like going forward.
Coming out of the FSP isn't a major concern and infact could be seen as a positive if it enhances value over the longer term of assets that aren't being sold. The last bit all IMHO.
Thanks all.
You are right. Having sat in silence reading the board for so long in anticipation, now we near the end game, my mind is running wild. No concerns, whatever the outcome I'm sure it will be positive. But the anticipation about how this bounty will be released is killing me! Clearly need to get out and switch off!
GLA
Optimist59
I get that, but could that mean 90% of the assets as opposed to 90% of the value of the assets which is what I assumed on first reading? Might well (and probably is literal) but just got me thinking because part of me still thinks JV is the most logical conclusion to extract greatest value and reduce risk for a potential buyer while there's still lots to prove up.
Year 2020
Before the recent RNS and the 'substantial sale' I was convinced it would be a joint venture going forward once Japanese consortium were highlighted. They would want the boards experience in mining, the area and politics was my thought process.
However could a dividend based on the sale of 'substantially all' assets mean that all assets are underconsideration MT, WK, flanks and JV. But actually only an interest in 50% of the afore mentioned being sold? So a joint venture with a new entity? Has this been considered/discussed? Apologies if it has.
The more I think about it the more it makes sense. Just not sure if this would trigger the takeover rule of 75% of assets or not which was also mentioned in the RNS? Technically all assets are being sold, just not 100% of them?
GLA
The AGM is an essential meeting where shareholders get to interact with the BOD. Now outwith the NDAs of the FSP we as shareholders will want to know whats happening. The board will need to have some answers.
In addition the EGM wouldn't have been called so close to the AGM. Its a resolution that would normally (and has historically) been passed then. They clearly did it because they wanted to be able to announce at the AGM in my opinion and was used to put pressure on the potential buyer(s) to conclude by then.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agm.asp#:~:text=An%20annual%20general%20meeting%2C%20or,when%20shareholders%20and%20executives%20interact.
GLA
Chrysalis
Some sensible things to discuss (at last)!
Like you I've read it many times too. I think if you read it all at face value it's true, appears contradictory. However as has been said many times this is like a game of poker. If they went with purely the first statement. It would give the impression that the credible party is the only one in the running. That they were more than happy with the offer. They clearly aren't otherwise we would have heard what the offer was.
If they ran just with the later statement then it would indicate we aren't selling and are going alone.
I still can't see MT and the JV being split. They are integral to each other in building the district.
I think its telling us thay we are close but not there, those that were at the table but not the credible party need to reconsider their offers. They still have time to gazump. We are close with one offer, but theres still things that need to be sorted. They shouldn't rest on their laurels because we are happy to go it alone if valuations/agreements can't be met because this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Another poker card being played.
Still think the AGM is the ultimate deadline, so not long to wait.
GLA.
My thoughts for what it's worth.
Given what EUA had to sell, I don't think there was ever going to be a full company sale. The majority of what they own is not in production, the directors want out as they have said a number of times. A full sale would require the new owner to take on all the staff and make them redundant if they weren't needed. This doesn't make sense in the sale of what EUA have to offer. I think the FSP allowed negotiations to take place behind closed doors and from what I have read on FSPs they often end in a sale of assets and not full company sale. They are also the favoured route of this type of transaction since they were launched. Possibly because of the NDAs to provide a more orderly process. Therefore the conclusion of the FSP as is, shouldn't be a concern as I see it. I think it was inevitable.
The recent RNS using the term substantial all as a sale of assets is a legal term as has been highlighted on the board a number of times. The phrase was used purposefully and would have been signed of by the NOMAD. This is more than a wink and a nudge. In addition the mention of the takeover code at the end highlights 75% of assets because of the need to pass vote.
MT has always been mentioned as pivotal in the region. No serious purchaser will want this and not the JV licences around it. Therefore the only assets that might be residual to a sale other than the staff, offices and machinery are potentially the tailings project IMO. Maybe a prospective buyer looking to access the PD market isn't interested in the leaching of tallings for predominantely gold and silver?
The AGM is definitely the pivotal date in all of this. The AGM is there to ask questions of the board. Quite rightly we will all have questions to ask if we are no closer to conclusion including resource updates and outwith the FSP the board will be expected to have answers.
Apologies if this has already been suggested. It's difficult to keep up with the board at the moment and read the interesting opinions amongst the rubbish.
Not long to wait IMHO GLA
Long term follower, first time poster, significant (for me) share holder - so dont shoot me down!
ACF report was circa 60p in April last year, with the approval of licences etc, increase in value of the assets, bidding war. I'd be disappointed with anything less than mid £0.70.
GLA