Member Info for slowlyslowly

138m out of 5332m in issue = 2.58%
So not necessarily

It's funny though. I realise you can't comment, so I'm talking to myself and musing aloud. First sign of madness, I know.

Whether you're banned on here would be a matter between you and LSE, and would be all to do with the rules of the forum.

Whether you post on Twitter or talk to journalists about matters relating to PHC or BOU would be between you and those two companies.

It seems odd for the two to intersect.

It's good to have you back here, whatever the story was behind the scenes. Thanks for all your hard work and all the thinking that you've been able to share.

Welcome back!!!!!

I agree - it may work, and there's no harm done. I'd certainly like to see him back. On the other forum, each would get a polite reply along the lines of: "I'm sorry but we can't discuss a member's account with anyone other than that person."

At issue may be that this could all end up in legal action; there are plenty of forum type sites that are very wary about any risk of being held liable for something posted on their site by a member. They err on the side of caution.

Let's hope we can get him back.

I help moderate on another forum (nothing to do with finance).

Occasionally members get banned.

Occasionally we get emails from other members in which they assume to know the reason for said ban.

They are almost always wrong.

We can never enter into discussions either, because the standing of one member's account is something we'd only ever discuss with that member, and not with another individual.

For example, this thread: http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=BOU&thread=31CE4E3A-9FA2-44AF-90B3-B7A5CB69CDAC

Not sure he's able to reply at present: http://www.lse.co.uk/member-info.asp?nick=Munters

No, I'm not saying that. MadChatter asked what potential reasons there were for the RTO to fail, and I can think of 3 scenarios. I'm not putting probabilities on those, even less saying it's a "reasonable chance". Just that it's a mistake to treat this as 100% certain to work out.

When? Who knows. (a) Prudent Haste (RNS 9/4). (b) Not in advanced discussion (16/4). (c) Within 6 months (or fail - AIM rules)

I think it's likely to RTO. But, devil's advocate, to answer your question @MadChatter:

1. Funds run out before RTO is successfully negotiated, and for whatever reason the Board are unable to raise more in time.
2. Potential targets cancel their attempts to take their companies to market.
3. Potential targets find other shells either elsewhere in AIM / main market, or even in other countries.

The way I see it: They're not saying the same thing, and they're not contradicting.

09/04: In discussions with more than one potential target
16/04: Those discussions are not advanced enough for you to jump to conclusions that we're nearly there.

Yes. 0.0125 is my top-up threshold

Perhaps you'll get the chance to come back in at your original target of 0.015?

@Munters: There is one bit of data that those with a positive outlook keep bringing up, but that you did not mention. That is Antos taking a 21% stake in the company (now reduced to 14% for reasons outside his control).

In the scenario you just outlined ("in my bet, this will ..."), what could his reasons be for buying those shares?

@Fourprinces - but that means they've already done the due diligence work for which they claim to need the funds. So they couldn't do that and then have a fund-raise later.

By "circular" do you mean identifying an RTO target? If so, doing that would trigger an immediate suspension under Rule 14 until such time as the RTO is fully signed off by everyone except the shareholders. So if they needed to fund raise for due diligence costs, they'd then be unable to raise the funds to complete the RTO and lift the suspension.

@BiffyBoy1982: "Will be sorted by the end of the week."

Whilst the RNS is genuinely no reason for panic, I think "sorted by the end of the week" is now ruled out.

"The Company can confirm that whilst it is the Company's intention to find a reverse takeover target, it is not in any advanced discussions with any such target."

We don't.

What we do know is that Antos took a 21% share in the company a while back, which has since been diluted to 14% in a share issue. We know that he owns several private companies in energy / gold sectors, and had tried to take one of his gold companies to the main market in Singapore through an RTO but that did not work out. From there, many have guessed it likely that his high shareholding would not be because has money to burn and thought a non-trading shell the best place to invest, but because he has RTO ambitions, and that Couer Gold is the likely one.

As for timing, again, we don't know. kajo99 is posting in a way that implies knowledge of things behind the scenes that have not been released into the public domain, but personally I always tend to disregard such comments because if they were true but without an RNS it would imply someone somewhere broke the law to leak it. They have 6 months, now they're a confirmed shell, to find an RTO, otherwise automatic suspension follows. There is no solid news from the company to say that they're going to do it this week. What they have released is that they're already talking to possible companies to back into (plural), and that they wish to progress this with all "prudent haste" - whatever that means.

So there are lots of pieces of evidence lined up, but nothing that says we "know" anything is happening this week. I'm also unclear why Antos is being referred to as a billionaire. Wealthy, clearly, but billionaire? - again, I've not seen anything to say as much. I suspect "billionaire" is a generalised way of saying "very rich"

Do your own research.

Still 19% up on Friday's close. Why is this a concerning dump?

Why would the FCA intervene on a name change that shareholders have approved?

It's explicit in AIM rules (https://www.lseg.com/sites/default/files/content/documents/aim/2018/January/AIM_Rules_for_Companies_January_2018.pdf, Guidance Notes for Rule 14, page 39)

Following the announcement of a reverse takeover that has been agreed or is in contemplation,
the relevant AIM Securities will be suspended by the Exchange until the AIM company has
published an admission document in respect of the proposed enlarged entity unless the target
is a listed company or another AIM company.
It should be noted that the Exchange expects the negotiations leading to a reverse takeover to
be kept confidential, as allowed by the guidance to rule 11, until the point at which the AIM
company can notify that a binding agreement that effects a reverse takeover has been entered
into, which should, as far as is possible, be accompanied by the publication of the requisite
admission document. If for any reason this is not possible, the nominated adviser should
seek the advice of the Exchange at the earliest opportunity.
If the new entity wishes its securities to be admitted, it will need to