Member Info for Spikeyj

B1ll, shurely you are not questioning the predictive power of zak’s charting on mothballed russkie based AIM shares? - shame on you!

13:21, nicely done b1ll.

“Maintaining dialogue with a large strategic investor since September 2021”

… vlad’s bagman keeps asking for another slice of ‘dialogue’ to make sure no-one has to slip on that hotel balcony …

“Ongoing difficulties due to sanctions affecting routine operations.”

? oh yeah ? … previous RNSs have kinda tried to give a rather different impression…

“Key strategy is selling assets.”

somewhat unfortunate that they are so completely s**t at their key strategy after so many years of trying.

“Importance of shareholder support for Board actions.”

please, please, please, vote to let us disapply your preemption rights and dilute you by placing a big wodge of shares with a couple of russkies in mirror shades at mates’ rates.

12:43, don’t forget also, directors who have been deferring pay & perks, and of course, since it’s russia, all those tireless baboushka’s who make a humble living mopping the blood off the pavements after all those terribly unfortunate high balcony accidents.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGvEQTQaTbQ

GM402, yeah, & it’s not like that’s a trivial matter … seems they don’t want to explain what has happened to the tens of millions they had already raised in previous placings, and don’t want to explain why they are asking for yet more placing money, rather than drawing on the umpteen millions previously handed over to them…. funny that …

Difranco, if putin’s war is raging on because “money men” are making loads of money out of the war, shurely trump would be one of the last people on earth to try to halt the war? …. most folks would agree he’s pretty money motivated, & i think he’s pretty keen on things which will help him and his mates to make loads of $$$$ out of anybody else’s exploitation and misery…

[… not meant as a ringing endorsement of harris either on my part, lol, am neutral between US republican vs democrat parties, tho’ just for a larf have a small punt on kamala to win.]

EUA didn’t explain what it was able to do with the money supposedly earned from selling the ‘test’ amount of concentrate … ? who was it sold to, in what currency, and in what jurisdiction was the payment received, and where did those funds go to afterwards? —— not much good to london pis if any payments made from selling concentrate just got pipelined from some russkie bank straight into some cypriot ‘holding’ account … are they able to repatriate concentrate sale money back to london to meet EUA’s own ongoing liabilities?

[me, dunno answers to the above … so if anyone can point me someplace all that has already been clearly spelled out, much obliged, tia!]

Glenn, they are certainly permitted to repeat, try to clarify/explain, or contextualise (e.g. discuss EUA’s strategy in relation to global markets, geopolitics, operations of foreign exchanges etc) information already given via RNS, but no, they are definitely not allowed to release any *additional*, *material*, *price-sensitive* information in this kind of webinar.

if they did, they would risk share suspension, cancellation and investigation of trades, fines, nomad having to consider their position, and possible censure / reporting regarding their suitability to act as directors in UK contexts. … not trivial stuff…

… more that it would create the potential for a false market, since different market participants would have access to different material, price-sensitive information.

i suspect that tiffintip probably knows that already, but is just pretending to misunderstand b1ll, as part of tiffintip’s ongoing campaign of rather personal trolling against b1ll.

however it does look like there are other posters on this chatboard who still genuinely don’t understand that EUA is not permitted to use a webinar like this to release additional price-sensitive information that has not already been RNS’d to the market as a whole. (stejstej’s 08:18 “Maybe we’ll get to see the DFS is a good example of that.)

Https://www.thetimes.com/article/784e61e8-b676-47b1-94be-9fb0b65f27fb?shareToken=e7594665c8255b5559b27f1438b5d92f

20:10, great post.

19:58, Happychimp, there is a middle ground which you and others could consider, of allowing the BoD authority to place new shares, but *without* disapplying your own preemption rights.

Happychimp, sorry, i’m afraid i don’t understand your 22:29 —- i was not saying that directors are last in the queue … to the contrary, i am highlighting that *shareholders* come last, so directors who have deferred salaries would get paid off well before any leftovers considered for shareholders.

Leno, i have already provided a link which sets it out for you pretty clearly - ?have you actually looked at it?

there is an order laid out quite specifically in the insolvency act, which puts **shareholders very clearly last in the sequence**.

yes, i do agree that there would be others in the queue before the BoD backpay, such as e.g. HMRC, administrator’s expenses, secured creditors …. no dispute from me about that, and again, just look at the Begbies link i provided.

19:19, hi leno, under insolvency act 1986, i think outstanding deferred payments to directors would be part of the overall ‘unsecured creditors’ class, but clearly ahead of any payout to shareholders —- shareholders very clearly come last, after everyone else has been paid out.

( i don’t know how different types of unsecured creditor are ranked in relation to one another, someone with more specific knowledge of the act might be able to comment.)

https://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/articles/insolvency/who-gets-paid-first-when-a-company-goes-into-liquidation#:~:text=Creditors%20are%20ranked%20as%20follows,Preferential%20creditors

Several posters have sought to argue that the current request to be allowed to place more shares is routine / trivial/ unremarkable, because it’s “only” up to an extra 10% ….

… but EUA already has a loan agreement in place that supposedly means their operational costs are covered until late summer 2025 (approx). —> ?? so why are they asking for *any* placing money permission at all, if they are reasonably close to (a) finalising either asset sale, or (b) MBO involving a strategic investor?

——> the obvious answer is that it very strongly suggests that no sale or MBO is likely to be on the cards within the next 9-10 months+. ( & by that time, auditors will again need to see a plan in place to remain a going concern over the next 12 month period)

…. & why on earth is EUA begging for permission to raise money by placing more shares to dilute current shareholders, rather than just sell some or all of their concentrate pile? — especially since they claim they were able to do a ‘test’ sale of some.

—- i.e. the idea that 10% dilution is nothing much, overlooks the question why they need to place any new shares in the first place?

(@gecko, if i remember correctly, the directors have *not* agreed to forego their salaries … they are simply *deferring* payment of pay & perks … they will still get all that pay, in the end … and in the event of corporate failure, paying out deferred BoD pay would rank higher than unsecured debt or shareholder equity, so BoD will still collect their cake even if EUA just goes bust)

If EUA has lent large sums to subsidiaries that the market has been told are ‘repayable on demand’, but for some reason it is now not possible for ask for those sums to be repaid, then that is highly, highly material info very relevant to share price prospects that should have been announced to the market; otherwise, serious risk investors are being misled about the company’s finances.

… but if the company has lent large sums to subsidiaries which *are* still repayable on demand, then why on earth is EUA begging shareholders to let it conduct another placing??— rather than call back some of that >£20 million money previously raised in placings, which was not spent on the stated purpose for those placings, and where no other explanation has ever been given to shareholders or the wider market about what is being done with that money.

19:32, sj, nice to see you’ve come round to the idea that it’s ok for others to hold and express different opinions from your own. well done.

meanwhile, hard to understand why rational pis would agree to let this company raise another placing, when they’ve already previously squirrelled away tens of millions of previous placing money without telling pis what’s happened to that cash —-

— where is all that previous placing cash now, whose pockets is it in, cui bono?