Member Info for unhooked

"Quickly reducing debt", Ant1986?

At IPO, the founder sold a number of his shares for cash proceeds of £212m. Institutions (representing, investors, pensioners and so on) bought them. This money does not go to the company, it goes to the founder personally. By the way, this is entirely normal. And essential. Without those shares becoming available, there'd be no public market. I think you're thinking of a capital raise where the company simply issues shares and sells them to institutions (or whoever). That money does indeed go to the company.

This is not like buying a house. Cash out at the top and then buy the company back 9 months later for a fraction of the price may be clever, smartly advised, good business, or whatever, but is a dreadful result from the LSE's point of view. If this was to become the norm, nobody would ever invest in an IPO, would they? And where would that leave the LSE?

Good to consider the broader picture and not always take such a selfish view.

Capita scales back on these director share awards, given poor recent shareholder returns. At least this is demonstrating good governance.

Voice of sanity (as opposed to the mindless ramping that goes on on this board) from JG68.

The only thing that will fix sentiment is Significant Debt Reduction.

If Radcliffe does intend taking it back to private status, investors should sit tight.

If that happens though, spare a thought for those who invested at IPO who'll feel pretty damn ****ed off as Radcliffe walks away with 100% of his company again, plus maybe £120m in cash. As I said 3 weeks ago, a nice bit of business!

Makes a mockery of IPOs and is v poor publicity for the London Stock Exchange.

Share price weakening again. You'd think with the direction the economy is going, Manolete's share price would be rising in sympathy. Manolete ought to be doing good business right now. Doesn't make sense to me unless the market is worried about potentially rising staffing costs.

I keep rubbing my eyes. Hello VIC !

Encouraging. Amyris Inc. sounds interesting too.

pasajero teaching us all how to suck eggs.

Ok.
I understand that there are no rules or rights pertaining to minority shareholders as to the price paid to them - it's a matter of negotiation between the parties. Basically, there's no easy way to force a minority shareholder to sell.
When I googled 'how to buy out a minority shareholder', there's loads of info which I'm not going to repeat here.
I can see no point in Schneider taking over the company 100% unless they wanted to delist it. If they wanted to do that, they'd have to offer minority shareholders a price they'd accept.

Indeed, better value for shareholders may well be obtained via a takeover than via remaining listed as an independent entity under the same (discredited?) management. That is often the case elsewhere.

I get your point about a takeover as an attractive means for shareholders to obtain value, given that the company is, as far as we know, doing ok operationally.

Pianista, thank you for taking the time to answer this important question. So, regarding the consequences of delisting on shareholders, I think you are saying that (whether voluntary or involuntary), no money would pass to shareholders in respect of their shares, as would happen if the company was bought out and taken private (and therefore delisted) in the normal way. Rather, shareholders would simply remain the owner of their shares, which presumably would be hard to trade. If I've got you right, that's obviously not good. I had hoped that there would be some sort of facility or option offered to shareholders whereby shareholders could cash out (even for a bad price) before the company went private and delisted. Following your view as to the consequences of delisting (again whether voluntary or involuntary) to its natural conclusion, we will end up as shareholders with untradeable shares, making them as good as worthless. I don't know Pianista, somehow my gut tells me (as I suggested above) a cash-out option would be offered to shareholders in those circumstances (which of course they are likely to accept, even if the price is low, when faced with the alternative of remaining an owner of the business but with no means of selling their stake).

And not to forget that there may be no delisting in the 1st place - which we both agree and we all agree is still a possibility and much the best outcome. Thanks again.

And what actually happens if they delist? Is it akin to a private buyout where shareholders receive something for their shares, or is it a total wipeout? Does anybody know?

Seems there may be more gifts on the way, such is the munificence of Cakebox!

Sharp uptick. Someone's buying. Should we be encouraged, or should we say nothing goes down in a straight line...?

Well, it's always good to have an ex military man onboard, but if RENX doesn't start obtaining some FDA approvals soon, it'll be us running out of ammo!

Great comments guys. If VIC is to be a very slow burner, one has to consider the investment case in relation to what will be generally lower returns elsewhere, when compared to the last decade. In that context VIC may work out ok... and so if the price continues to decline towards 40p, this is one I'll be prepared to average down on.

Mad price action today: up 25% in the morning and down 25% in the afternoon, to finish the day level.
As if nothing happened.
But we got news of two years funding. I mean, what kind of positive news does it take?
And the gyrations in the UK small cap market recently - so much liquidity has been sucked out!
Lots to worry about.