Member Info for TheMadStork

djm1: Here's the relevant rule from the PS:

3.5 The offeree company will be required to make announcements providing
an update on the progress of the formal sale process, as appropriate.

I guess you could argue that "as appropriate" does not mean they are required to give general updates. It's definitely a little unclear though.

harryharls: I don't think it's the case that all they can release are formal bids or significant events. The text of the update released by BOTB about their ongoing FSP, which was released 4 1/2 months after it started is as follows:

Update of FSP

The Company, together with its advisers, remains in ongoing discussions with interested parties from a number of sector verticals and including private equity. These discussions are continuing despite the constraints of Covid-19, though the related restrictions are naturally impacting the speed of discussions. The Board wishes to reiterate that there can be no certainty that an offer will be forthcoming or as to the terms of any such offer and looks forward to keeping shareholders updated in due course.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that says they can't give a general update on the FSP, as BOTB did on their similarly long-running saga. In fact, updates are implied to be required by the Practice Statement posted by djm1 below.

The good news is that the DFS will definitely arrive at some point. It's still Christmas in Russia so not surprising it's delayed.

The bad news is that the DFS is entirely immaterial. WK represents at most 3% of the current mcap. All the 'value' is in MT. That doesn't mean the price won't react short term on the DFS but it will have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the FSP.

I generally don't get involved with the inane "rampers/derampers" debate but I will say it is amusing that the bulls on here post thread after thread of copy/pastes, low-content cheerleading or personal attacks, yet it is bears who get accused of 'trolling' or 'spamming' or 'lack of facts'.

I think it is reasonable to have one thread on here to discuss the bear case. If you are unable or unwilling to engage with opposing views, feel free to ignore.

It appears whichever IIs were rebalancing their positions have finished. I'm not sure about this week, but with no large sellers, a buoyant overall market and no chart resistance til c20p, I see no reason why it shouldn't hit that level reasonably soon.

Beyond that, I think it will take news on further contracts or Niger drilling to spark a larger move, but I've been holding a large position for 6 months with a 2 year timeframe in mind and I'm confident of large gains over that timeframe.

Again, I think you are confused by the term "success fee". Working on a success fee basis simply means the bank gets a large bonus -maybe even the majority of their total fees- if a deal completes. It does *not* mean they are working for free.

To be fair, I can see how it is confusing, as a lot of corporate finance-related stuff is, but the fee structure UBS and other banks work under is actually very simple and I can absolutely guarantee you that they are not, will not, and have never worked for free.

I think you may be confusing investment banks with lawyers. A lawyer can afford to work on a no win no fee basis because cases are judged on the basis of objective law, and a competent lawyer can be almost certain of winning a case on the merits. There is an appeal system in place if they lose.

A company merger or sale is entirely different and can fall through if a CEO gets up on the wrong side of bed. There is no recourse and no appeal. No IB in the world would ever work on a "no win, no fee" basis.

tombi1: No investment bank works on "commission sale basis only" - they would be mad to do so. Any deal, no matter how good it looks, can fall through at any time for any reason with no recourse. UBS are working on a success fee basis, which is standard and basically means a bonus paid on deal completion. They will be charging a retainer and other fees as standard.

Dickie88: Of course the company was for sale at £50m. There were apparently interested parties and that was the current market capitalisation of the company. There was absolutely nothing stopping anybody from making a bid at a modest premium to the current price, as is standard practice. The views of the board are irrelevant as all firm offers *have* to be RNSed per Rule 2.2, **regardless of the attitude of the board.**

If fact, at that time EUA was still subject to Rule 2.4, which means any serious approaches would have had to have been RNSed too. There were none.

The asking price is now 18 times higher. Why would there be bids at this price?

Evan3020: How has the state-approved resource at MT changed since 2018? The publically available decades old info from the state registry does not count. The house is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the asking price

In fact, not only did nobody make a bid at 1/20 of the current price, there were not even any serious offers on the table as these would need to have been RNSed under rule 2.4, which EUA were subject to until July 1 2020.

Stonk: More like the house was in Walthamstow first in 2015 and relisted in 2020. Sure, the market is up a bit, but only 10-20%.

Montyboz: None of that explains why the company was on sale for £50m (after interest was made public) and nobody bid. There was absolutely nothing stopping anyone bidding in October of 2019, at 1/20 of the current asking price. Why did nobody bid? None of your points answer that basic question.

Also, Barrick Gold recently sold their license at Fedovora Tundra (right next door) over 12m state-approved oz PGM (vs EUA's 2m) to Rostec for $60m.

I see people suggesting that bears need to provide links, data and facts to support our claims, which apparently are laughable and based entirely on lies.

In my mind, the logic that I am using is extremely simple and does not require any special knowledge or amazing facts. Someone posted a while back comparing the sale process to the sale of a house. Here's my logic using that analogy:

A house is listed for sale at £100,000. Buyers view the house and there are no offers. 15 months later, the exact same house is on sale for £10 million.

or

A house is listed for sale at £100,000. An offer is made for £150,000 subject to searches and survey. In between the offer being made and contracts being exchanged, the vendors reject the offer and put the house back on the market for £10 million. Again, it is the exact same house.

Wkworld: That is flat out wrong. As part of the FSP, EUA are exempt from Rule 2.4:

2.4 THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A POSSIBLE OFFER
(a) An announcement by the offeree company which commences an
offer period must identify any potential offeror with which the offeree
company is in talks or from which an approach has been received (and
not unequivocally rejected).

Basically, under the FSP, they do not have to announce approaches/talks. However, Rule 2.2 still applies, and *firm bids must be RNSed*

I would also note that prior to the start of the FSP, Rule 2.4 still applied, which means that not only were there no formal bids, there were no serious approaches either. And this is when the market cap was 1-30% of what it is now!

MrYFronts:

EUA are subject to rule 2.2 of the takeover code:

2.2 WHEN AN ANNOUNCEMENT IS REQUIRED
An announcement is required:
(a) when a firm intention to make an offer is notified to the board of
the offeree company by or on behalf of an offeror, **irrespective of the
attitude of the board to the offer;** (emphasis mine)

Any firm bid *has* to be RNSed regardless of the attitude of the company. There have been no bids.

But how does the Sinosteel package explain why nobody bid for the company when the price was so much lower and the resource for sale has not changed?

I do not see how who the CEO is changes the value of the resource at MT.

Again, any potential bidder has known exactly what is for sale since the market cap was £10m. Why have there been no bids?

Montyboz:

The Sinosteel contract and loan commitment was a vote of confidence in MT (subject of course to various conditions, including EUA coming up with $26.5m!). It has been known about since 2016, however, and does not change the fact that any potential bidders for the company have known exactly what is at MT since 2018. It cannot be used as a justification for the 95-100 fold uplift in the value of the company since October of 2019.

Lesego did due diligence and declined to acquire MT when the asking price was about 10% of the current market cap, which just proves my basic point.

Sorry, I was a little hyperbolic to say it's clear there's been no interest at any stage. I think it's reasonably certain that there were interested parties back in October of 2019 (mcap £10-50m), but none of that interest translated to an approach or firm offer at that price.