Pv Crystalox Solar Share Discussion Threads

[zcaprd7] 30/1/2018 13:46

Let's hope so, been waiting years for this, what do the management team do with themselves all day?

[extrader] 29/1/2018 18:33

Hi all,

LSE shows 60K sales and 300K buys, the latter incl. 150K at the bell at 20.8733p....

Onwards and upwards....!

ATB

[cl0ckw0rk0range] 29/1/2018 16:12

Someone keen to add today...

[zcaprd7] 25/1/2018 12:51

Copy and paste alert...

[extrader] 25/1/2018 12:00

Hi zcaprd7,

By coincidence, I've just received the same reply from Wethey.....;->

ATB

[zcaprd7] 25/1/2018 11:37

Looks like we are waiting on a) the payment and b) a decision on whether they want the wafers (from the FD):"As you noted on 8th November we updated the market that the award required the customer "to pay the amount of around €34 million including interest to the Group. The obligation to pay is not conditioned upon the delivery of 22.9 million wafers, outstanding under the contract, although the customer's right to seek such delivery is not precluded by the award." The Board is actively reviewing the situation and we will announce the outcome of the strategic review as soon as a formal decision has been made.

[zcaprd7] 24/1/2018 19:49

Indeed, which makes me wonder if they are waiting for payment, and something has snagged there, or (and maybe related) they will sell up the lot to Neo...

[extrader] 24/1/2018 19:05

Hi zcaprd7,

I'd hope so. I wrote to IR on 9th Jan and again to day as follows :

...I'm a long-standing holder of X shares in the Company, held through YYYY and should be grateful if you would advise me (and/or the market) of the likely completion date of your strategic review.

Shareholders were advised in August 2017 that the Board was 'awaiting the outcome of arbitration before completing [ implying a process already well advanced] its strategic review' and the final , favourable, outcome itself announced some 2 months ago.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

It's not as though they've a lot else going on at this stage......

ATB

[zcaprd7] 24/1/2018 15:00

Topped up here, must be news soon...

[zcaprd7] 22/1/2018 14:46

Net amount due, with consideration for outstanding wafers delivery, I suspect... Hence the smaller number. Its more bless what people on here were using for their NAV calculations?

[zcaprd7] 22/1/2018 12:29

Outstanding wafers figures in dollars....

[flyfisher] 22/1/2018 08:58

Their is a disparity between the announced euro 34m award and the figure in post 6777 of usd 28.1 ?
Is the usd figure the net amount with no product delivery.

[meijiman] 20/1/2018 09:17

Reminds me of Rurelec..their assets got taken by the government and they got well below value from a tribunal.

[zcaprd7] 19/1/2018 20:49

I think an international tribunal award is somewhat different, although it's not clear how you enforce one, without diplomatic incidents occurring...

[extrader] 19/1/2018 08:17

Hi yasX,

Given that they are bound to pay interest on any unpaid sum due, they certainly do not seem to be keen to pay up.

That rather depends on what the cost of alternative finance is, though, doesn't it ?

For instance, my children have a number of friends who could readily pay off their student loans (the earlier, preferential rate ones), but have been advised not to....

ATB

[yasx] 18/1/2018 22:13

Given that they are bound to pay interest on any unpaid sum due, they certainly do not seem to be keen to pay up.

[zcaprd7] 17/1/2018 23:13

Indeed, may as well just buy and sell at market prices...

[zcaprd7] 17/1/2018 11:48

Yes, we don't know when the offer was made... Also, they've hardly lost the case, but it explains the "multiples of market cap" when they were discussing the award potential previously.I've no idea what planet these judges live on... I'd be tempted to appeal, but then that's other delay to winding the whole thing up.

[extrader] 17/1/2018 09:35

Hi orinocor,

To be fair (?) to PVCS, my reading of the RNS's is that the arbiter's price reset is relatively recent (Oct 2017), not 'years ago'.

ATB

[orinocor] 17/1/2018 09:11

so pvcs actually lost the case. They've also held back a lot of information from their shareholders that is only coming to light now from the other party. Then again it must be hard for them to admit they could have settled this years ago for a similar payout

[investoree] 17/1/2018 09:00

I thought the idea of agreeing a long term supply contract was to lock into a fixed price into the future and was made on the assumption that something untoward could happen, otherwise why enter into such an agreement. What if the unforeseen consequences had caused wafer prices to move in the opposite direction would they have agreed to a price increase or insist PVCS kept to the agreement and supplied them at the lower price. What about the large number of companies who hedge their foreign exchange rates, or companies whose business is heavily reliant on the oil price such as airlines who agree forward pricing. This creates a great deal of uncertainty as to the point in committing to any sort of long term supply agreement for anything if any unanticipated event which skews the market price allows the contract to be cancelled/amended.

[zcaprd7] 17/1/2018 08:37

Aha, that might be why they didn't get costs... They were offered a deal and turned it down, lucky not to be paying the other sides costs! Probably worth the gamble in the circumstances, but I'd say the ruling introduces moral hazard for future cases. "Yeah, sign any deal you like, and if things change in the market, don't worry, just pay the market rate, not what you actually agreed to pay" meanwhile, poor old pvcs is paying its suppliers at agreed rates! Could have been a much higher windfall...

[extrader] 16/1/2018 18:46

Hi zcaprd7,

I agree with you.....and what happens to legal costs apportionment, since plaintiff PVCS didn't accept the arbitrator's proposed price reset, which was reportedly close to the price finally approved by the Tribunal ?

ATB

[zcaprd7] 16/1/2018 17:41

What happened to "business is business".I'm a bit miffed there was even a price reset... The loser refused to pay anything and had to be taken through the courts, and they get to pay far less than the agreed price!