Tintra Share Discussion Threads

[purchaseatthetop] 09/5/2023 11:38

"If the Subscription Price formula results in a price that is less than the Floor Price, the Company may elect not to issue shares and instead opt to repay the applicable subscription amount in cash (with a 9% per annum premium), subject to the subscriber's right to exclude 30% of the subscription from such repayment."

No....30% must be in shares even below £1.10.

[2magpies] 09/5/2023 11:36

However, the other 70% can be en-cashed at any level, and at anytime. At the option of TNT.

[2magpies] 09/5/2023 11:35

the 30% is only obliged to be released at £1.10 or more. yes.

[purchaseatthetop] 09/5/2023 11:31

fisternator. I agree with your post 6494. This is where TNT BoD are in breach. They refused to release 30% of the settlement in shares. Depending on the contract, that would have been written by Bergen, that might be a fundamental breach entitling statuory demand notice. That means 18-21 days to defend or repay. If they cannot defend, then they have to repay. Which they cannot.

Never pick a fight you cannot win.

[fisternator] 09/5/2023 11:24

1.Floor price 110p
2.if less that the company can pay cash and not issue shares.*
3. However*The subscriber has a right to exclude 30% of the subscription from such repayment.

i read that as Fintech loan shark has the right to not accept cash for 30% of the loan. Otherwise would else could it be stating?
The floor price relates to the right for TNT to repay cash, but does not overrule the loan sharks right to exclude 30% from any cash repayment and thus take shares at the formula of 5 days VWAP -5% as set out in the agreemnet.
aimho,

[801710245] 09/5/2023 10:41

This bounce is a pleasant (and unexpected) surprise.

:o )

[2magpies] 09/5/2023 10:39

Tintra now promising imminent updates:

[2magpies] 09/5/2023 08:36

Oh, and one more point:

There is no 'Floor Price' for the en-cashment option. It can be instigated at anytime, at any level.

Perhaps that is why the Company is electing to do it now??

(and the subscribers, quite understandably, 'don't like it up-em' ..credit ..'Dad's Army'!)

[2magpies] 09/5/2023 08:24

As I read it:

1. 'Floor' Price suggests that shares cannot be subscribed to at a level below that (i.e. £1.10) . (It wouldn't be termed a 'Floor Price' otherwise)

2. The 'en-Cashment', as it were, alternative is only triggered at the election of the Company. (the subscriber cannot, e.g. 'elect' to subscribe at 70p)

3. 30% of the subscription is excluded from the en-Cashment option, and therefore, can only be settled via a share issue (but at a minimum of £1.10, with no maximum strike price).

4. Perhaps what the Company is attempting to do is to reduce the 'subscription' to 30% of the original amount.

5. If, then, a hugely a +tive announcement (e.g. a Puerto Rico licence) is made, sending the share price rocketting (in an instant -- as has happened with TNT - atleast 3 times in the past), the 30% residue will require even fewer shares to be issued.

[fisternator] 09/5/2023 07:57

Adg, as i read it Fintech loan sharks have the right to coverts 30% of the $3 million in shares, even if below the floor price?
This is what i believe the company may be trying to negotiate away from instead asking them to take their cash back plus 9% over the next 24 months rather than have to issue millions of shares at say 67p.
Whatever way you look at it the cash was supposed to be crucial for developing the banking platform and by the looks is getting paid back rather than being used for that purpose.
This company is a complete mess.

AIMHO.


"Further, the Subscription Price will not be the subject of a cap and will be the subject of the Floor Price of GBP1.10 per Share. If the Subscription Price formula results in a price that is less than the Floor Price, the Company may elect not to issue shares and instead opt to repay the applicable subscription amount in cash (with a 9% per annum premium), subject to the subscriber's right to exclude 30% of the subscription from such repayment."

[adeg] 05/5/2023 15:54

This is the issue. They can elect to repay the 30% share section at market value instead of issuing new shares. The original RNS from December is not clear.

"Tintra will have a further right (but no obligation) to forego issuing Shares in relation to the subscriber's request for issuance and instead opt to repay the subscription by making a payment to subscriber equal to the market value of the Subscription Shares that would have otherwise been issued."

[dark energy] 05/5/2023 15:49

They are asking for their cash + 30%, so what's the issue?

Let me guess; they think they return the loan shark their money and have no return on their investment.

Perhaps they should call a stupid Arab and tell them we need 3m. Do you want to buy 300,000 at £10?

[dark energy] 05/5/2023 14:58

Which stupid arab will invest now when vulture can buy at 30p? LOL

[2magpies] 05/5/2023 14:52

Might just do (for a laugh) a lit-crit of THAT 16/12/22 RNS, and get back ta-ya-all!

[2magpies] 05/5/2023 14:40

I posted this a long, long time ago, when Shearer was in ultra-verbose mode:

''Words are like Leaves; and where they most abound, Much Fruit of Sense beneath is rarely found'' -- Alexander Pope.

To me that was an early warning sign: CEO using, far, far too many words.

They also made an absolute manure of the Lottery disposal (which in terms of scale was an incredibly minor thing), and went running pith-helmet on to save Africa.

Ludicrously grandiose ambitions/words/claims!

Now they have a fight on with ....... a US entity! And, of course, in the US they are not really all that litiginous, are they? No, indeedee!

Could be funny if the lawyers charge by the word! haha

[fisternator] 05/5/2023 14:14

This chest bang aged well didn't it?

16/12/22 Richard Shearer , Tintra CEO, said,
"This support from Fintech Leaders Fund is another validation of the strength of our mission especially with a team that shares our vision of revolutionising how emerging markets directly benefit from financial inclusion."
"In sharing this vision Fintech Leaders Fund have 'put their money where their mouth is"

[fisternator] 05/5/2023 13:42

Yet again everything as clear as mud with Tintra.
Am i reading the rns right in presuming that

A-the company wanted to end the Deed and agreement and settle the outstanding amount in cash only?

If that is the case then why would they care if FLF issued a demand for that very thing?
Maybe the company asked for the amounts to be deferred for later?
That was my first reading of it,

Or
B- have i misunderstood the RNS and what the company are saying is that it didn't want to end the placement agreement but only wanted to end the DEED that allowed FLF to have cash repayments. Thus making/asking FLF take shares at this pitiful level rather than cash?
Or in lay terms potentially issuing hundreds of thousands shares at a circa 8% discount to shareprice each and every payment request?

honestly i have no idea?

As always happy to stand corrected and DYOR

aimho

[fisternator] 05/5/2023 12:59

In my opinion the RNS is incorrect in so far the company stating that have the right to repay using cash only.
According the RNS dated 16th December 2022 FLF have the right to 30% of the $3000000 in shares no matter what, even if below the £1.10 floor price.


Amazing

[dave4545] 05/5/2023 12:52

I sold 7500 at 81.5p paid 100p for them.

Still got others left but cutting losses is probably safer, having a bounce atm though

[wally27] 05/5/2023 12:50

One to avoid

[2magpies] 05/5/2023 12:49

They also have unbelieveably qualified staff you know!

Just wondering how loudly to laugh.

Ah, yes ..... those halcyon days when the ramps were everywhere!!

[adh0] 05/5/2023 12:47

Still, at least they have a nice cultural map and are advancing democracy. Whatever those two things mean.