Member Info for usernames

Yeah, you have no idea what the terms of the new SOA will be yet.

What makes you think that the new SOA will result in the company being valued at 50pps?

The reason I believe that SOA V2 is priced in is because the alternative to SOA V2 is insolvency. If the market believed that insolvency was the way this is going then the SP would be much much lower.

timmy - no deramping here but I'll remain grounded.

SOA V2 is likely but the key is "upon what terms". The current SP has already factored in the likelyhood of SOA V IMHO. The future share price will reflect the terms offered to creditors. That could lead to the SP rising or falling further.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to be hairsplitty. Just pointing out to those on here (not necessarily you) that may not appreciate that there are quite specific parameters for getting leave to appeal a Court decision.

So we know they aren't going to submit an appeal probably because there are no grounds for an appeal. That leaves them with the options of filing for administration (which they are unlikely to do, as doing so would demonstrate that they had a valid basis for making an appeal in relation to the SOA) or preparing SOA V2.

I'm minded to believe that SOA V2 will come. This is the good news as I see it. The bad news, however, is that the terms to be put to creditors may end up shafting shareholders for quite some time. There is a great deal of uncertainty over what the FCA and Judge would consider to be a fair offer to creditors.

Please DYOR as this is all IMHO.

That's why this whole thing is so embarrassing for Amigo. It looks like they tried to BS the Court and the judge wasn't having any of it.

Franky - "if insolvency was looming you'd roll the dice and appeal as a last shot to nothing" is not quite right.

You can appeal if the judge made a mistake as to fact or law. So, if insolvency was looming you'd be appealing on the basis that the judge made a mistake as to the company's financial position based on the information as presented in Court.

As Amigo aren't appealing the decision, it is safe to assume that any claim about admistration being highly likely were not entirely correct.

So, you wouldn't be appealing as a "shot to nothing" but on the basis of a mistake as to fact.

Factor in that the lockdowns impacted Christmas, valentines and mother's day then ithe results are even more remarkable IMHO.

Frankly - I'm in agreement with the 3 month lead time and September on the basis that Amigo have already worked out what will satisfy both creditors and the FCA. If they haven't worked that part out yet then it could all be pushed out further.

Three months gives a lot of time for sh17 to connect with fan so fingers crossed.

Mark@1973 - any amendments to the documents would change their substance away from the documents that were approved by creditors. It then becomes subjective as to whether the amendment improves the deal for all creditors and whether all creditors would have voted in favour of the revisions.

There are no minor tweeks that would satisfy the FCA and Judge, and be immeterial as far as changing the substance of the original documentation. Once they become material changes, you really need to get creditor approval IMHO.

I'd be surprised if creditors could have a deal imposed on them just because Amigo, the FCA and/or the judge thought it was a better deal.

The decision, and any consequences, has to be taken by the creditors IMHO.

Aim stock... ? I don't think AMGO are listed on aim.

I too think SOA 2 is a realistic prospect. What shape it takes is another matter. And this is what will drive the SP.

As for a rise in the SP as early as next month, I'd like to think you're right but I'm not holding my breath. Lost too much to sell now (-70%) so will hold on until it recovers or blows up. Averaging down doesn't appeal due to the potential for further loss.

Cando66 - are you sure that a deal can happen at any time? My understanding was that the FCA openly stated that they would not object to the original SOA. It then got voted on by creditors and the FCA later did a u turn and said they would object in Court.

I wouldn't feel confident saying that a deal has been done until the vote on a new SOA has taken place and the FCA haven't done a 180 prior to the Court approval.

In summary, this will probably be on a knife edge until the days running up to the next hearing, if there is to be one. The SP might not reflect that but even in a best case scenario the situation remains as before IMHO.

LL - some good points there, thank you.

TV and radio advertising are the obvious route to success with online card offerings. I don't think CARD are doing either so maybe they see the risk of self-canabalisation as too great...?

The lockdowns were THE time to start pushing card on TV and radio but I don't think they did it. There must have been a good reason for that. I'm not sure what there new marketing agency is up to, if anything, but it must be quite subtle.

Maybe. Also possible that she negotiated a fantastic package for herself in the event that the company survives and is taking a risk based approach to a new role.

The flip side to your argument, in any event, is that the existing HR Director has obviously left the role.

Anyway, back to the point about a new HR Director being of no material significance and therefore of no interest in the grand scheme of things.

So, you're asking why stores would not tell people they don't need to come to their stores, and should shop online instead?

I'm sure you can see why that would be a bad idea for a company with so many high street shops.

Seriously, who cares about the appointment of a new HR Director. It's not going to impact on the critical issues the business is facing right now.

She could be fantastic or terrible. I don't think that creditors, the FCA or the Court will give a flying monkeys. I don't.

The BODs "job" was to get the SOA approved not only by creditors but also by the Court. Creditor's approval was nothing without the Court's approval. When the BOD were left to do their job, they didn't exactly do a very good job IMHO.

Hopefully they have learned their lesson because it has personally cost me many thousands for them to get that lesson. However, if anyone from Amigo is reading this then here it is in a nutshell: make sure there is no BS in the documentation you put before creditors and get your sh17 together before walking into a court room. Oh, and get your sh17 together before walking into a court room! I appreciate that the last point is a repetition of a previous point but it is such an important point I felt it was worth making twice.

Senator - if Amigo had any sense, they'd get you to brief the barrister next time around.

Amigo aren't going to appeal the decision, so it is safe to assume that the Judge hasn't interpreted the forecasts incorrectly.

Basically, Amigo are saying that they see no mistakes made by the Court about the facts.