BGS - Birimian

TRADING HALT

In accordance with Listing Rule 17.1, I advise that:

1. The trading halt is being requested pending the announcement of a company update including an offer received for its Lithium asset.

2. The Company requests that the trading halt continue until the earlier of the commencement of normal trading on Friday 30 December 2016, or when an announcement is made by the Company regarding the above material transaction.

3. The Company is not aware of any reason why a trading halt should not be granted.
 
VRS said:
TRADING HALT
In accordance with Listing Rule 17.1, I advise that:
1. The trading halt is being requested pending the announcement of a company update including an offer received for its Lithium asset.
Click to expand...

Oooh, presumably good for the share price short term?
I have been looking to unload some BGS as I'm a bit top heavy.
Although if they sell all their Lithium asset then what does that do to future prospects?
 
I would like you all to know I almost bought half a million shares in this company b4 Chrissy and was just ruminating again on it this morning b4 announcement.
N9t r3ally.
 
Could someone give me some insight into the $100 million sale and why the price of the stock has risen approx 21%?

Comments welcome.............
 
It's the binding agreement of the deposit that is creating all the confusion and anger (so if the potential buyer fronts up with the 10% deposit then BGS BOM are obliged to honor the deal).
The price has risen because the bid creates a gap in the current $60M market cap.

But what nobody can understand is why would management insert that clause into the deal when it is apparent that most people think the resource (which is likely to double on further drills) is worth so much more.

Hopefully there's more to the story and more bids will show up. Or there is something wrong with everyone's interpretation of the contract..
 
boneyard said:
Could someone give me some insight into the $100 million sale and why the price of the stock has risen approx 21%?

Comments welcome.............
Click to expand...


Number of shares divided by sale price + cash holding is greater than current share price.
 
Disappointing offer and 'interesting' terms that have been outlined.

I have decided that this should be seen as a starting point, not an end point though. The clause to really pay attention to is that even with a deposit paid up in full, there must be shareholder approval to seal the deal. I hope that this low ball offer shakes some other bidders out, so that this one can be turned down and another, larger offer taken up.

No sale will reflect the full potential of the deposit, but realising that potential requires potentially years of waiting for production, from a company with no track record of getting projects to production. Give me a sale any day, just a bigger figures please!
 
heartastack said:
It's the binding agreement of the deposit that is creating all the confusion and anger (so if the potential buyer fronts up with the 10% deposit then BGS BOM are obliged to honor the deal).
The price has risen because the bid creates a gap in the current $60M market cap.

But what nobody can understand is why would management insert that clause into the deal when it is apparent that most people think the resource (which is likely to double on further drills) is worth so much more.

Hopefully there's more to the story and more bids will show up. Or there is something wrong with everyone's interpretation of the contract..
Click to expand...

That's not exactly correct, the deposit means that they then enter into an agreement with the letter of intent. The LOI is just a arrangement of terms to negotiate a prospective sale which precludes the company seeking other buyers or any other included conditions as agreed to by both parties.

Any negotiated sale is still dependent upon the shareholders agreeing to any sale or other sort of arrangement at an EGM in any case.

The non refundable deposit and LOI is the actual starting point for negotiations and the current offer of $107 M, U.S is the current base price that people should be thinking of as BGS current value.

The offer is a joke and everyone knows it.
 
Not sure if anyone saw the announcement today, but an EGM has been called by some major shareholders for a reshuffle of the board.

Basically they are calling for Winton and Hugh to be replaced by Michael Langford and James Mckay

Langford is the guy that have been developing relationships with our Chinese partners, getting the 2 MOU's with billion dollar companies. He sees great potential in our lithium tenement and is happy to work for options based on performance targets. This shows how much value he sees in the lithium project.

James Mckay is brought in for his experience. He has previously taken from a 10mil company to a billion dollar company. He also has some African experience. He knows what it takes for us to go into production.

Winton and Hugh has done a good job thus far in taking us to where we are now but I feel that in order for us to take the next step, we need to have the right personnel in place and this change is definitely, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

I am excited for this change and will vote 100% yes to the resolutions proposed. If anyone has any further questions, feel free to contact Curtis (boy1 on hotcopper) at [email protected] They are addressing all queries from shareholders.
 
It gives me confidence that the top end of the registry has stamina and a good sense of what needs to happen going forward without senselessly dumping their shares. Unfortunately the insto's (i.e. GAS & Sprott) are at the mercy of their business models, and so we've seen some further downward pressure from their selling (GAS confirmed, Sprott unconfirmed). It tells me that yet again, there is a great entry point here.
 
Just voted for 4 x For :)

May this steer us into the right direction and for bgs to realise it's true potential.
 
Voting is due by 11:00am Monday 20 March 2017, so get it done this week people ! :cool:

VRS where are you on this ? You have been awfully quiet lately.
 
I just got a letter from the chairman pleeding to vote AGAINST, obviously, because if it's for then he gets thrown out :D
They claim that the rebel alliance amounting to 6.5% of the shares has been providing misleading and inaccurate claims?

I have not been following this, does someone have a TLDR; ?
 
Both sides of the story have merit. It could reasonably be argued that the current administration has the runs on the board whilst the new crop are an unknown quantity of sorts. Then again they might be what's needed to take BGS to the next level. Personally I think the Chinese dealings were average at best, detrimental to shareholders at worst. It's a case of DYODD and what's right for you-none of the big fish are there to look after you.
 
screaming eagle said:
Both sides of the story have merit. It could reasonably be argued that the current administration has the runs on the board whilst the new crop are an unknown quantity of sorts. Then again they might be what's needed to take BGS to the next level. Personally I think the Chinese dealings were average at best, detrimental to shareholders at worst. It's a case of DYODD and what's right for you-none of the big fish are there to look after you.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
I'm in BGS for the big gain so I guess that looks more probable with new management (but more risk). I think I'll vote FOR.
That deal last time looked a bit dodgy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top