We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Before close on 1st March one of the following will happen:
1. JD will announce his firm intention to make an offer - which means announcing in summary form the principal terms, conditions, pre-conditions etc.
2. JD will announce that he won’t be making an offer
3. There will be an announcement that The Panel have approved an extension
It’s also possible that another offeror may surface before 1st March, in which case timings/deadlines etc may change.
@dean01:
- The directors of a company can choose to start a CVA process IF the company is insolvent. They don’t need a shareholder vote to start the process.
- In simple terms, once the CVA has been drafted, 3 approvals are required:
1. 75% of creditors responding representing at least 50% of the amount outstanding
2. 50% of shareholders represented at the required meeting or by proxy, note that isn’t the same as 50% of all shareholders
3. A supportive opinion from the appointed insolvency practitioner
- The outcome you describe “All contracts for leases can be exited at nil costs.... all redundancies are nil costs.... all existing manufacturing contracts can be exited at nil costs” whilst shareholders multi-bag is complete fantasy - it can’t and won’t happen.
As I set out in an earlier post the likely outcome of a CVA for shareholders is that they will lose most of their money. In practice this may be because the terms of the CVA (to be agreeable to 75% of creditors) require extra capital to be injected by shareholders, likely via a deeply discounted placing or similar. I don’t think there are any cases of quoted retailers executing a CVA with shareholders remaining intact (let alone multi-bagging!). The company is insolvent - otherwise there wouldn’t be a CVA - so pre-existing shareholders have in reality lost their money before the CVA is agreed. The process simply isn’t there to protect their interests.
The outcomes here are:
1. JD offer recommended
2. Competing offer recommended
3. No offer, company is solvent & continues to work on recovery
4. No offer, company is insolvent & a CVA or similar is implemented
1 or 2 - you’ll likely make money from this point / SP
3 - bid premium will disappear overnight, you’ll lose money from here
4 - you’ll lose money, probably faster
This is a blind punt, albeit an interesting one to watch. Don’t bet the ranch, and don’t fall in love with the idea. And Ignore Toffers nonsense.
Some thoughtful/insightful comments in this thread - thank you.
More drivel , perfectly demonstrating the gap between googling and knowledge.
Minimum consideration is in no way impacted by whether holders are acting in concert with other or not. A completely separate issue. And JD isn’t acting in undisclosed concert with James Holder. He’s not going to risk his potential bid, censure from the panel - or worse - by breaking basic rules in broad daylight.
It absolutely is that simple.
@Toffers - I have pointed you carefully toward the answer to your repeated question on minimum consideration and time periods. Part of the answer is actually in the text you quote below - the requirements in respect of a mandatory offer (eg if the offeror goes past 30% PRIOR to making a discretionary offer) may be different to those extant when rule 9 doesn’t apply.
Do you think JD and his advisers will carelessly wander past 30% and wake up one day having to make a mandatory offer under rule 9?
I can (& have) pointed you in the right direction on this several times. Why not read and think rather than flapping about like a carp in a boat repeat posting here?
@dean01 - CVAs are an Insolvency Act process. Shareholders are the last concern, rather the process is intended and run to protect the interests of employees and creditors. CVAs can include a capital reconstruction including a rescue rights issue.
It’s a safe assumption that shareholders in a company that announces a CVA will lose their shirts - their shares losing most if not all of their value. As they should - they are providers of risk capital and this is the inevitable outcome when a company becomes insolvent.
“… UP TO a value of £3,000 per employee”
“… an additional 9,515 Ordinary Shares have been issued”
Couldn’t be any clearer, @AVCT.
On this board in particular, there are some enthusiastic frequent (and to be fair, well-intended) posters who are posting from the most dangerous part of the Dunning-Kruger curve. Textbook examples of unconscious incompetence with little if any awareness of the perimeters of their market knowledge/understanding…
None of the major platforms - HL, Barclays, Fidelity, II, Charles Stanley etc - lend shares. All of them say this explicitly in their T&C.
If you’re using one of these (or their peers) then the notion of placing a limit sell to stop your broker from lending your shares to shorters is just LSE bulletin board drivel, and can be safely ignored.
@Krustysmegma - BSIF is on my list to investigate. Do you hold? Interested in your rationale / investment case if you are minded to share...
If I were an adherent of charting - which I certainly am not! - I would observe that the daily chart looks v promising here. A chartist would tell us that If the break above 90p can be consolidated, further gains may be realised.
Yes - that's possible too.
The point I was trying to make is that any re-rate here is unlikely to be driven by small punter trades and sentiment/volume ticking up. Rather there will be a price dislocation on hard news.
Could happen at any moment!
Encore une fois groundhogs. It's deja vu time again..!
If there's ANYONE left reading this board who hasn't worked out the obvious posters and their patter, you only have yourselves to blame....
Saw your header @Driving, so took a look.
Just 20 pocket-money trades so far today, nothing >£10k..!
I don't think the tape is going to tell us anything on this share. It's not going to multi-bag (as we are promised..) on the back of penny-punter trades. If it's going to work out as we hope I expect the first thing we'll see will be a suspension RNS, followed by an exciting wait for info..!
Malcy evidently has a position.. ;>
“I have slightly rejigged the numbers for the company as a result of this deal but either way there is phenomenal upside, any success at either Selene or Pensacola would make my TP of 200p per share look ridiculous. Deltic must have a very good chance of being a ten-bagger from here as despite reasonable performance this year of a 30% rise in the shares, any similar news from Pensacola or of course the Selene well would dwarf that move.”
No. Read the RNS!
A major holder.
Scroll down further. There is a paragraph headed “Rule 2.9 disclosure”
Far more misinformation than disinformation on this board. Generally from posters who are well-intended but lacking knowledge. Perhaps especially those who seem to post before reading or thinking…
On the 2.9 question, the company made the initial 2.9 disclosures on Feb 2nd in its RNS. The release yesterday was only to update the notified shares in issue number. It doesn’t mean that any offer has been received as some are speculating. The company is obliged to issue updates as and when any of the 2.9 disclosed information changes. The shares in issue number is very important because it is the required denominator in all calculations of %holdings.
A bitter blizzard of accusations @alibaba42. Looks somewhat personal…
You can - as you say - wait for clarity on UK revenue generation under the new framework, and for completion of the US rollouts. But likely not at the yield available today. A risk/value judgement; your call is different to mine - that’s what makes a market.
“…GSF have simply thrown some batteries into a GRID put in an operator and said ok thats done whats next - oh the uk grid is saturated (which they realised late) - lets do the same in the USA.
…they are reactive and not actually lokking forward into the market and trying to anticipate trends and how their assets can benefit from it.”
“…there have been a bunch of people in energy storage who think they are smarter than they are and GSF is certainly one of them.”
“…they thought they were smart to choose smaller batteries which turned out to be incorrect (because they cannot participate in Blaancing Mechanism”
“…GSF is arrogantly contuing to purse their expansion into more small batteries in the UK without really considering the futurre revenues tthese will generate”
“…GSF and rest of 'im the smartest guy in the room' will end up being acquired at below NAV once the dust settles and smart people with good capital allocation can acquire these muppets”
“…GSF think they know it all but it has proven to be false so far in UK.“
Nonsense. The initial 2.9 disclosure was in the Feb 2nd RNS:
“Rule 2.9 disclosure
In accordance with Rule 2.9 of the Code, Superdry confirms that, as at the close of business on 1 February 2024, being the last business day prior to the date of this announcement, it had 99,072,093 ordinary shares of 5 pence each in issue and admitted to trading on the main market of the London Stock Exchange. The International Securities Identification Number (“ISIN”) for Superdry's ordinary shares is GB00B60BD277.“