The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
SBP, given the price it is very hard to see those 2 large trades being sells.
The trading pattern has been a little unusual. Oerhaps some form of announcement is fairly imminent.
Of course that is the start of the process. Any acquisition will presumably need shareholder approval. It is also the case that it will probably (but not certainly) require suspension and listing particulars for readmission. AIM is a bit stricter in this respect than the main market.
But is does look like the story may become a bit clearer in the next month or so.
None of the below of course has any negative impact on the prospect for the restructured nu oil going forwards.
You may be right Marbur.
But if all the millions he "ripped off" were spent furthering the hole in the ground in NF and the chasing of the marginal dream then he doesn't have them. Certainly he has paid himself reasonable handsomely over the years but that doesn't mean he still has it (or access to it).
RMRI (as of its lasr accounts) had available 1352 in cash.
It has substantial creditors and debtors, though shareholders funds when all were settled would have been approx 2m.
However subsequent to those accounts ABTechnology has been put into liquidation (forced by pannone corporate llp who petitioned early september), this will have a substantial impact on the balance sheet. It will very likely leave RMRI with a defecit in shareholders funds. Possibly to the tune of 3m.
There is the matter of a modest bank loan approx 10k (which has been paid down from over 100k), and as yet unpaid share capital of 29k.
HSBC also hold a fixed and floating charge over all RMRI assets from 2013. Who knows what covenants to the debenture have been agreed, but being in deficit would be a common one.
The receipt of 55k (albeit in shares) will have triggered a vat liability - and consequent near term cash requirement - of approx 10k. HMRC are not noted for their generosity when it comes to VAT.
All the signs from the filed accounts and subsequent events are that RMRI does need a chunk of physical cash.
I suspect under current moderation policy this will disappear. But all the above is very easy to check and verify from companies house filings.
I think ir is probably fair to assume that Minty had some limited knowledge of the new bods intent.
But I also think that is entirely irrelevant.
Previously Minty had always sild whatever shares RMRI was paid in lieu of cash for the bills.
RMRI accounts are not particularly rosy and we know there was a debt which was discounted and settled in shares. Further the payment in shares crystallies a VAT liability on the cash equivalent and the profit element will be subject to corp tax, adding furrher to RMRI cash requirement.
I am pretty sure RMRI have been selling because they need cash more than the shares.
I don't think it reflects on any knowledge of underlying progress that the new bod may have made.
Harry,
I wonder if the return of interest to EOI might cause PVF to join Nuog as defendants given the change. EOI appears the proverbial man of straw anyway, nuog less so.
It is Nuogs conduct for the time they were holding the asset (EOI equity in its entirety) which gives rise to any possible cause of action.
Discarding the asset doesn't change that.
SBP, yes there should have been one from RMRI. Maybe some are owned by minty and some by RMRI (though the 'control' argument could be made). Maybe as you suggest been sold. Or maybe just not bothered.
In my experience notifications - which are the responsibility of the owner not the company - are at best described as erratic.
Quite amusing that RNS.
He had 3.34% of the old float.
He added 25m for 75m total and now has 2.91% and has notified because he has crossed below 3%.
I am not certain he needed to notify since he never had 3% of the new float. But a slightly bizaare regulatory situation either way.
Shows the 50m trade wasn't him of course.
Harry,
I guess there is no way we can find details of any eventual judgement ? Its not expected to be relevant to nuog of course.
LT,
Must admit I was curious when I saw the TR-1. I believe simon is actually wrong so reclaim any gee from him :-)
Relevant changes need to be notified of course. But their definition is
"Changes to the holding of a significant shareholder
above 3% (excluding treasury shares) which increase or
decrease such holding through any single percentage.".
Read that carefully. The disclosure is only required when the holding itself has actually changed.
There will be some additions to the 2.5m. An unknown amount of unpaid bills and wages etc. How much is anybodys guess (though personally I would expect it to be less than the net placing funds received).
Only the debt to C4. Terms are in the RNS but basically:-
- 2.5m
- no interest
- unsecured
- 5 year term
- convertible at 0.05p (5 bln)
- c4 may not own over 29.9% of the equity at any point in time
SBP, very true. There are other potential reasons.
Perhaps as part of my plan I actually want to reinvest some of the proceeds in persuing further assets to produce a more sustainable business. Perhaps those proceeds won't be enough and finance will be needed.
A listed entity with a clean ish structure may be a good way to try and achieve that.
Those expectations will govern what I were to want out of the new structure.
My co has an asset which is going to produce 40m net profit over time. That is 32.4 after tax.
After that production the asset is worthless.
I want to use NUOG as a vehicle to utilise the tax losses. So I need to receive at least 32.4m myself for that to be sensible.
Maybe I would accept the idea of 35m.
With the tax losses the 40m means 40m returned net. So 35m for me, 5m for existing equity holders.
Currently there is an existing 2.5bln issue and 5bln under control of their loan notes.
I take a new 50bln shares. Keeps the equity share "fair".
Existing (and new placees) see 1.67m. C4 3.33m. Me 35mln.
Everybody is happy (ish).
SBP,
I will have a go at articulating some thoughts. I will try and keep it reasonably short.
If I (or rather my companies shareholders) owned a producing asset that is profitable the motivation for reversing that in is to improve their position. This could occur as a result of the tax credits. But it either going to cost a huge amount of dilution, or cash. If there is debt then this impacts the bottom line - reducing the bottom line and thus the utilisation of the tax credits.
If there is an asset expected to produce 40m over the rest of its useful life that is likely to cost about 40m less risk premium but discounted to today.
Thus it is likely to mean that there will be huge dilution in order to allow that return to flow to the current owners.
In effect there would be 8m to share equitably between the current equity owners of nuog and beneficial owners of the asset.
I dont therefore see an effective transfer of value from the interests in the current asset to existing shareholders.
An alternative scenario is using nuog as a vehicle for a new licence or a much cheaper development asset. This would allow the utilisation (if sucessful) of the tax losses over a longer time and further down the line.
We shall see how it pans out. But I can only see a profitable asset arriving with huge dilution (or some other way of the future value of that asset flowing to the existing owners).
Lod,
I don't understand why your post was removed.it's not the first time.
It wasn't rude. Offensive. Defamatory.
Sure some wouldn't like it but that's life. The moderation on here, in my view, has got ridiculous.
For: A leap into the unknown with the hoped for prospects of incoming assets in the form of RTO. 6 months to get something in, and a small amount of cash from the placing. Limited hope for previous holders to recoup something, better hope for new holders due to lower priced holdings.
Against: Any contingencies in the debt swap against non approval will trigger. No idwa what these are. Immediate funding will be required and the bod - who have doubtless understated - acknowledge it will be very difficult. Likely rapid administration unless there is an unknown bidder in the wings.
Against could conceivably visit some pain upon the mintys due to the intertwined nature of various debt. In any event whatever happens C4 hold the debt and Minty now has control of the NF assets via EOI.
Gary, I am not sure that fines etcwould make much lasting difference. Its about all they can do though.
The problem of course is trying to change behaviour rather than the after the event enforcement just being "a cost of doing business".
Gary, I think a large part of the issue comes from the fact that all the oversight come simply feom a Nomad. I am not sure how else it could reasonably he regulated though.
It is akin to have the fox manage the chicken coop.
BH, indeed you were. To me you were fairly clear. In effect "I don't believe the long term story. But shorter term over thext few weeks/months I think it could be a decent trade".
Thats pretty much what you are saying now too.
Timeframe is always a very important consideration when considering views.
Lods post and responses removed. Lord only knows what boundaries they crossed.