Member Info for Sorted

Primary vs. Secondary Shares:

• Primary Offering: This involves the issuance of new shares by the company to raise capital.

• Secondary Offering: This involves the sale of existing shares by current shareholders (such as founders, executives, or early investors) without raising new capital for the company.

2. Institutional Shareholder Concerns:

• Institutional investors often want the pricing of primary and secondary shares to be the same to ensure fairness and avoid arbitrage opportunities.

• If secondary shares were priced lower than primary shares, it could imply that insiders are exiting at a discount, which might signal a lack of confidence in the company’s future.

3. “The Secondary Should Price the Primary”:

• This means that the price at which secondary shares (existing shareholder sales) are placed effectively determines the price of the new shares issued in the primary offering.

• The idea here is that market demand and price discovery from the secondary sale set a “fair market price” that should also apply to the primary issuance.

4. The Trade That Set the Price Was Unaware of the Primary:

• This suggests that the market transaction which ultimately determined the pricing (likely a bookbuild process or negotiated trade) was done without knowledge that new shares would also be issued at the same price.

I’m surprised that given WC have put out official comms that SAVE are not forced by the NOMAD to prove its reason for suspension is still valid.

Perhaps "free" wasn't the best choice of word. What I meant was free in their perception. When dealing with corrupt institutions and governments, it’s often useful to try and think from their perspective when evaluating how situations unfold. As things stand, the way they’ve manoeuvred this allows them to potentially secure a significant sum of money upfront. I have no doubt that a substantial portion of it will end up in the hands of corrupt leaders. These individuals neither care about nor consider long-term consequences; they act purely out of self-interest and focus on immediate gains. They’re playing their cards to benefit from the present situation, and I don’t believe they are even contemplating the future ramifications. Who knows, they probably won’t even be around when arbitration happens and SS has to face the consequences. My guess is that they’re solely interested in short-term gains.

I disagree with your take on this. Before Petronas withdrew, South Sudan had little to gain from Petronas selling the assets to SAVE. By not approving the deal, they effectively forced Petronas into a position where they would have to relinquish the assets, essentially handing them over to South Sudan for free. Now, South Sudan has the opportunity to sell these assets and benefit from a significant windfall. Given this, why would they allow the assets to pass to the other existing members without any cost when they could sell them and potentially make hundreds of millions?

I believe SAVE is the preferred party to negotiate with and finalise a deal quickly. Involving any other party could result in a much longer, more drawn-out process.

Apologies for off topic but aware there could be some on here that have a reasonable opinion/knowledge on Predator oil. I have a friend that just went in on it in a reasonably big way based on another friends tip( which I knows not great). From what I can see it’s purely an exploration play. Anyone have any decent knowledge on whether it’s a good punt/option.

Might be semantics but was Save’s mission ‘delivering projects that matter in Africa’ latest RNS I believe it just said ‘delivering projects that matter’ could they be looking outside of Africa? Could have this wrong or reading too much into the detail.