Member Info for Timmit

Sorry Surprised, you’ve already addressed this. It takes so long to look up and type answers it means others who are quicker get in there first!

Marco Coppini & Eufingest didn’t dispose of shares. They still have 86,279,102 shares. The difference is that amount is now a smaller proportion of the total shares issued. Prior to 30/05/18 there were 433,803,192 shares in issue so their proportion was 19.89%. By end of June there were 513,092,462 shares in issue so their unchanged shareholding now made up only 16.82% if the enlarged capital. As more than 1% of their shareholding in the company has changed even if the amount of shares stayed the same they were obliged to inform the company.

Hi Krull, don’t know if it helps but try replacing the phrase “not "LESS" than 125 percent” with the phrase “at least 125 per cent” as it means the same thing. If I’m going to pay not less than £10k for a car then I’m going to pay at least £10k for it. Btw no apology necessary if mistaken - we”re all trying to get our heads round some fast moving developments and we’re seeing different bits of the same large picture...

So CC an RNS should be forthcoming in terms of holdings by end of 5th day that holdings exceeded another percentage point....? Is that your reading? https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-1710?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1

Some of them are mine but not sub 70p!

Yes, but in his defence CLP have often issued RNS that can seem ambiguous! My query is why do Eufingest agree to these terms when the original terms are not unreasonable and they have agreed several extensions? They certainly are the most supportive of shareholders! ;-)

Hi Krull, the RNS says “"The "Conversion Price" means an amount equal to not less than 125 per cent and not more than 500 per cent. That establishes a range within which a conversion could taken place - the lower figure of 125% would give a conversion figure of 1.5625 per share if the average share price had been 1.25p during the assessment period. It can’t mean that the conversion price is 125% less than the share price as that would be minus 25%!

EK latest comment https://masterinvestor.co.uk/evil-diaries/evil-knievil-some-sagas-seem-to-go-on-forever/

Sorry don’t understand your point. If the company can convert debt at a minimum of 125% of the prevailing average share price isn’t that an improvement from the original terms where the minimum was 20% of the share price (ie more shares would have been issued under the old agreement). Am I missing something?

The way I read it is that bond debt can be converted at a price well above the prevailing share price so this is good. Normally on AIM shares are issued like confetti well below the current share price and heavily dilute existing holders. This is the opposite...

Krull, I think it was money advanced by a shareholder (Olivetti) that was then used to buy property. Banks, particularly Italian banks, have been happy to take big haircuts on loan repayments to meet the harsher liquidity requirements in the wake of the 2008 banking crisis. Even if they accept a discount of 80% the 20% they get is cash. A percentage of the book value of their outstanding loans they would have to treat as possibly not going to be paid, at least this way they remove the element of doubt for regulators.

Sorry left off the part that each of the debt buybacks were in RNS

Don’t think there’s anything underhanded here. I remember there was a point in time when the loan against the villas were about equal to their value but I can’t honestly remember them stating it was secured on the villas. With the debt buybacks I believe any loans outstanding used to buy the villas was paid off at a discount and the full value of outstanding debt transferred to Clear Leisure 2017

Fairly sure loan cleared on villas (believe it was the Olivetti loan bought at a discount - it used to show a shareholder loan as Olivetti were a significant shareholder some time ago so that’s why there was no “first charge” on the villas). So that debt buyback gave us a bigger slice of the unsecured creditor “pie”.

Hi MegaTron1981. The reason it was appropriate to mention the 2M euros invested is that without that investment CLP would not have had a first charge of 2.68M euros and would not have had an unsecured claim of 8.21M euros. They would have been in the “bus queue” with all the other Mediapolis creditors, first charge held by a bank and CLP a much smaller creditor amongst the unsecured.

Think the 2.6M trade receivables is the amount due from the first charge at Mediapolis...

Are buys not sells....

Tottyman - the rules of the CLP BB dictate that any mention of Alfredo Villa requires the utterer to put £1 in the swear box and then, when we get to £100, we get to invest it in a choice of magic beans, an Italian zoo or Alaskan ice factory! So, cough up! ;-)

Couple of reasons they didn't bid perhaps.

As per RNS "Last week, the Company had formally commenced the process for the direct assignment of the land to Clear Leisure 2017 Ltd by presenting the request to the Ivrea Court. The auctioneer appointed by the Court on this matter rejected the direct assignment proposal." So, firstly, they had requested through the court to have the land assigned to them in payment of their first charge. That's the most shocking bit of this as it seems that the court/auctioneer could have got the equivalent of the 2.61M euros rather than the discounted amount they have realised. The courts and auction process is surely supposed to realise the best result for the creditors.

Secondly, if they had bid on the property they would have ended up with the same asset they thought was going to be assigned to them but have to pay up to 10% fees in addition.

That's my understanding. Just wondered if the "armchair lawyers" would count it as a disposal as it would be going from Mediapolis to Clear Leisure 2017 but then it could be resold as you say...Hence possibility that it could be claimed for twice (sorry I've realised I didn't make that clear in my original post!).