Bens Creek Share Discussion Threads

[purchaseatthetop] 10/11/2022 21:24

Not quite the two thousand words from Seagreen but still quite a lot.

As I posted earlier it is very easy to work around the 3% TR1 rule. Bluestar could place the 22m shares in three seperate companies each with 7.33m shares and none would be above 3%. Then they could happily sell with no TR1.

Quite funny to see that Seagreen continues to ignore the evidence that the whole thing stinks and blames me for making everything up. Hello.

[mindminer] 10/11/2022 20:10

This is great

[ohojiim] 10/11/2022 19:23

I have only read this post, breezing in but if I were to scroll down I imagine Xaras and the chariot would have been out for a spin.Who needs others with such a self congratulatory approach to life Purch?We share similar headlamps, but some run silent and never bolted to a chariot :-)MBU is like Medusas hair on steroids in a room full of squirrels. Some may need to contemplate . . .

[purchaseatthetop] 10/11/2022 19:19

Seagreen. Section 13 page 225 of the admission document.

“In the opinion of the Directors, having made a due and careful enquiry,and in the opinion of the Company, taking into account the net proceeds of the placing, the working capital is sufficient for the groups present requirements that is the at least twelve months from the date of this document”.

That was to mine 349k clean tons in 2022 after 20k clean tons in 2021.

The initial placing was $9m but Adam and Co paid themselves $1.8m of that as salaries in the five months after admission and now $45m has been raised. To mine nothing in 2021 and maybe 110k tons of clean coal by end August 2022. If they had followed the admission document mining plan they would have mined around 260k tons clean coal by now.

So, they have spent $36m more than the admission document plan and have mined 150k clean tons less.

And that, my dear Seagreen, is why the share price is in the pits. Just my view.

[purchaseatthetop] 10/11/2022 18:55

My BS has been gold dust to sensible readers. Have you not noticed the messages of thanks?

[seagreen] 10/11/2022 18:52

Looks very specific through unbiased eyes
Great fun you actually believe your own BS

[purchaseatthetop] 10/11/2022 18:40

Seagreen. Standard section covering future dilutions. The admission document stated that no new working capital requirements for 12 months. That is what I bleat about.

[seagreen] 10/11/2022 18:23

By the way just looking through the IPO document Patt I note on page 58 they made it absolutely crystal clear from the start they would need to raise more funds despite what some were bleating



(e) Dilution
The Company will need to raise further capital in the future to be able to achieve its stated goals which could potentially be through public or private equity financings or by raising debt securities convertible into Ordinary Shares, or rights to acquire these securities. Any such issues may exclude pre-emption
rights pertaining to the then outstanding shares. If the Company raises significant amounts of capital by these or other means, it will be likely to cause dilution for the Company’s Existing Shareholders. Moreover, the further issue of Ordinary Shares could have a negative impact on the trading price and increase the volatility of the market price of the Ordinary Shares. The Company may also issue further
Ordinary Shares, or issue share options under the Company’s existing share option plan or any other scheme put in place by the Company, as part of its employee remuneration policy, or issue further Ordinary Shares or warrants over Ordinary Shares to third parties in respect of services provided to the Group, which could in aggregate create a substantial dilution in the value of the Ordinary Shares
and the proportion of the Company’s share capital in which investors are interested

[seagreen] 10/11/2022 17:24

shorts burning as the USA powers back....will not be long here

[seagreen] 10/11/2022 17:08

Precisely



The Modeller
10 Nov '22 - 14:42 - 7874 of 7877
0 0 0
If MBU haven t defaulted Bluestar can t call in the shares and sell them; furthermore if a notifiable volume was sold to an SPV(s) they would still be subject to a TR1.

[stocky50] 10/11/2022 16:22

So much speculation. And yet no one know anything. Makes it ever more interesting.

[ianio5691] 10/11/2022 15:28

A potential suitor tried to buy in to PET, a couple of years ago.
PET issued them shares, which they duly used as security on the loan they had taken out to buy in!
The Security holder then started forward selling the shares causing them to crash back down spectacularly...

Never say never in the murky world of AIM.

It is up to Adam to get to grips with this situation, and reassure the markets this is not happening.

[the modeller] 10/11/2022 14:42

If MBU haven t defaulted Bluestar can t call in the shares and sell them; furthermore if a notifiable volume was sold to an SPV(s) they would still be subject to a TR1.

[purchaseatthetop] 10/11/2022 14:27

Ianio. Bluestar could easily have placed ownership of their 22m shares in say three companies so all less than 3%. That way they could sell with no TR1. I fully agree that the seller has been doing so for months and the ONLY source of those shares were the 22m converted at 10p on admission.

So, yes, Bluestar but via a Seperate company. I have posted this before.

[ianio5691] 10/11/2022 14:23

Could Bluestar be our continual background seller?
Clearly someone with a big holding, as its now into many millions and been going on for months.
Why no TR1 to confirm who it is?
Or are BEN 'not aware' of this as well?

[purchaseatthetop] 10/11/2022 13:55

Cjohn. Bluestar were the “other lenders” who provided the short and longer term loans to set up BEN and we issued shares at 10p on admission. They got many millions. Maybe about 22m. They joined Storey in the panic sale when the first dud RNS appeared. Bluestar and Iqbal are tied together but I bet are at loggerheads now. I bet Bluestar are desperate to get out a.s.a.p. I also bet MBU have already defaulted. Every loan they have is in default. Bit a matter of not if but when or already.

[cjohn] 10/11/2022 13:48

Hi Patt,

If MBU defaults, then the ball's in Blue Star's court. That's for sure!

I've done some investigation on Blue Star. Nothing worth reporting back on.

Clearly, Blue Star think BEN shares are worthy security: though another possibility is that's all MBU have to offer. Still given that Blue Star already own several percent of BEN, we can assume they're not unhappy.

[seagreen] 10/11/2022 13:32

we do get it Patt there is and has been for a while a situation where all shareholders can sell subject to a soft lock in

rightly or wrongly the significant shareholders belive the company to be undervalues

[seagreen] 10/11/2022 13:29

Under common law MBU are the legal owners, due transfer of ownership would be required or MBU would have to sell the shares they are the legal owner as far as Crest are concerned.

Or a court order would have to enforce it. (triggering an RNS)

But MBU have not defaulted on their debenture yet as far as I know and neither party have sold a single share yet.

If anything it is a conviction by Blue Star Capital and MBU that the company is significantly undervalued

But I would say that and you would disagree

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

as with all your posts come to think of it.

[purchaseatthetop] 10/11/2022 12:47

Cjohn. There may not be a new majority shareholder. The CREST agreement allows Bluestar to simply sell whatever number of shares they need in the open market, not take them to own and hold. The key point though is that all decisions are out of MBU hands.

[seagreen] 10/11/2022 11:48

CJ

Agreed I have already said Patt was right on that specific issue only (both times).

SG

[cjohn] 10/11/2022 11:38

Your first sentence is spot on, seagreen: I mean of your one but last post: the make up of the shareholder register and the company's economic value are totally different considerations.

If MBU are unable to repay what they owe Bluestar, there will be a new majority shareholder at BEN.

We have no idea currently what their intentions would be in that circumstance.

PATT rightly drew attention to the end of lock in; I for one would be quite happy to see the back of MBU.