Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I could live with 5 USD for stock that I bought for less than 3 cents :)
Thanks, snow! Much appreciated. I'll have a look.
Don't seem to find it on iHub. What's the ticker?
Thank you very much. This is very helpful. Indeed, these documents ought to be quite embarrassing for Mr Chen.
Dear downthehatch,
would you know if the defendants filed the requested document, and if so, would you have a link to it?
Dear downthehatch,
Thanks for the link and the information. I'm not used to reading US legal proceedings, but it seems even to my tone-deaf ears that the judge was not best pleased?
Yes I saw it - thanks for the link, by the way.
Then let's wait for the good news. On that note, RENN made a little happy jump today, unclear why.
Thanks for the info. This will be an interesting report.
I suspect these are the forced Nordnet sales.
Two days left before Nordnet closes the possibility to sell. I think we may go lower still.
Dear downthehatch,
I fear your enthusiasm (which I by the way share) got the better of you. It was 125 million rubles, not dollars. :)
Don't know yet, but I fail to see why not. Trying to find out.
The issue would rather be the timing. It can take weeks to transfer shares and only a week remains until their deadline.
They wrote:
"Värdepappret kommer INTE vara tillåtet att inneha ha på kapitalförsäkring.
Om du vill behålla aktierna behöver du mäkla över dem till en vanlig aktie- och fonddepå.
Där kan vi förvara aktierna. Som det ser ut just nu kommer vi inte kunna erbjuda möjligheten till försäljning."
My understanding, for what it's worth, is that Nordnet can move the shares to a depå, where they can remain for the future, but from which they cannot be sold until SIAF is quoted again.
Hi,
Yes, I got the same information and kicked up a fuss because this went completely against the very clear information Nordnet had provided to me earlier.
They promised to look into the matter, but came back today and said that it would not be possible to keep them in a KF, and that was final.
Not very professional, I have to say. I'm quite disappointed.
Nordnet can keep the shares in a normal "depå" though, so I will possibly move my shares there, knowing that I will then very likely be unable to sell them until they are quoted again. An alternative may be to move them to my other broker, Lynx, which works with Interactive Brokers. Will check in the next few days.
Ok, but here it seems we got the same information: that you can keep the shares in your KF indefinitely.
This is the key point for me, because if I want to sell in the future, it is because the stock has increased in value. And moving the stock out of the KF to another bank and selling them immediately afterwards would not trigger any big tax hit, whereas moving them out of the KF now would lock in a very low acquisition price.
I do not think it will be to complicated to find a bank to take over the shares in the future. My first bet would be Lynx, which works together with Interactive Brokers. But I will cross that bridge when I reach it.
I keep my SIAF in a Swedish Kapitalförsäkring.
I was just informed by Nordnet Sweden that I do not need to sell my SIAF shares before Mars 1, nor do I need to move them to another account before that date. The shares may remain in the KF; the only restriction being that they have to be moved to another bank when I want to sell them in the future.
This is reassuring, but a bit surprising that we get so different replies. Possibly due to different national rules?
What is it that you do not think?
SIAF owns only a third of Tri-Way, and another third is owned by unknown entities. Solomon may very well own more than 30 million shares of Tri-Way's stock.
It seems three documents in support of the motion were filed on October 6th.
Does anyone on the board have access to these documents and would you then be willing to share them?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks! I will try to listen in, it should begin at 21.00 in my time zone.
Dear downthehatch,
Thank you very much - most interesting! We live and learn, for example the poetic "arm's length's" condition needed some googling.
This is interesting! Just for my curiosity: how should the term "adequacy" be understood in the legal context?
Dear co-frequenters of this board,
According to point 26a of the 8-K filed on July 30:
"a. Plaintiffs’ counsel will file papers with the Court in support of the Settlement on September 15, 2020."
Has anybody seen these papers and if so, would it be possible to share it with the board?
Thanks in advance.
Thanks for keeping us informed. Much appreciated.
Sorry, in which way would I be "factually wrong"?
I agree. From my more careful reading of the settlement, it consists of
1. Old promises repeated (e g to pursue the Tri-Way dividend) and non-binding declarations of intent (e g the buyback). As nothing of this has any timing, I wouldn't pay too much attention to any of it.
2. Corporate reforms, notably the new CFO, the corporate committee and the nomination of the two directors with the power to block dilution. This last is less of a concession than it seems initially, because the settlement allows Solomon to terminate their services at will, possibly even within the first two years. And the committee has no defined powers against Solomon.
3. Finally, the 1.25 million shares in Tri-Way. The heart of the matter.
All in all, it seems that the core of the settlement consists of Solomon paying the plaintiffs to go away. The rest is only decoration, and doesn't bring about any significant and certain improvement.
I would even suspect that the corporate reform fluff was added once it became clear that the settlement had to be made public.
We shouldn't forget that the plaintiffs fought very hard to keep the settlement secret from us. And in their place I would have done the same, because it doesn't fulfil the conditions of a derivative lawsuit - the main benefits do not flow to the company as a whole, but to the plaintiffs and their lawyers.
Dear downthehatch,
Which broker do you use to buy ORSUF?
If so, I am one of the five. And I take this occasion to thank you very much for making the documents available - it is very much appreciated.
I very much agree. This paragraph is a shameful attempt to stop other shareholders from intervening by putting up obstacles, like the obligation to send copies of any objections via "first-class mail" (!) to TWO addresses.
If you write, ask the judge to strike out the entire point 7 except its first three lines, as it is excessive and against the best interests of the other shareholders.
My reading of the settlement is different from most of the posts I've read. Most of it has no timetable and cannot be enforced and moreover gives no influence to other shareholders than the plaintiffs.
I'll come back later once I've analysed the text but it really doesn't look good.
I agree, this is nonsense.
"Share Count
The Company recently increased its outstanding share count to 60M shares. This was done in large part to accommodate an offering of preferred equity shares. As envisioned, a provision in this offering would allow an exchange of common shares for preferred shares. If fully exercised, there must still remain an adequate number of outstanding common shares."
"[Q:]The Company recently raised its authorized share count and issued new shares, the first newly issued shares since its commitment to hold the share count. Please explain.
[A:]The actions are in the best interest of the Company. Details, analysis, and implications will be addressed in an upcoming posting as soon as plausible."
Thank you! Much appreciated!
Indeed. Today's release is positive but the most essential point is not dealt with: the continuous dilution which is made possible by Solomon's A shares.
If anything, the wording about equity funding seems to suggest that Solomon wishes to keep that cash tap open, to the detriment of us all.
Another glaring omission from today's release is the promised information about how issuing 10 million additional shares at a small fraction of book value and halving the stock price would be in the best interest of the company.
I have also written a letter to the judge and I would invite all other shareholders on this board to do the same.
Make your voice heard; even a brief e-mail will be better than nothing.
As for me, I argue in essence that:
1. the way SIAF's management handles the company is harming us as owners of the company and that we are unable to protect ourselves, since Solomon holds his A shares,
2. the lawsuit is introduced for the benefit of all shareholders and the settlement should therefore also benefit all shareholders,
3. the circumstances around the settlement raises questions as to whether this is true,
4. therefore, the judge should order the settlement to be made public in order to disperse these legitimate doubts and
5. in case the Court is not convinced that the settlement will benefit all SIAF's shareholders, it should vacate the dismissal.
I have sent the letter by e-mail to: Furman_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov
Address:
The Honorable Jesse M. Furman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Centre Street, Room 2202
New York, NY 10007
I gather that the correct way of addressing this judge is "Dear Judge Furman":
http://www.bu.edu/law/files/2016/01/09C_CDO_How-to-Address.pdf
Dear NordStorm,
I fully agree with your conclusions (and judging from the current share price, the market does not thinks that the settlement will bring any benefit to SIAF).
It is clear that since the entire letter is a plea to release Seiden from the obligation to disclose the terms of the settlement to the other shareholders, this settlement cannot be anything they are proud of.
You write:
The Judge should decide accordingly for proper notice (including disclosure of settlement terms), but be prepared to file an objection if by some miracle he is fooled by Seiden’s semantics in their response letter.
Dear NordStorm,
Thanks for the very interesting information.
Would you know if we other shareholders, alone or together, can present our views on the lawsuit and the motion to dismiss it to the judge, and if yes, how to go about this?
Could such an initiative influence the outcome of the dismissal motion?
Thanks for sharing the information. Much appreciated.
I do not really understand the reasoning regarding the gross margins in Tri-Way's recent credit facility announcement. Clarifications from more knowledgeable board members would be very welcome.
As a reminder, the Q&A for 2018 stated a gross margin of 13% and a net margin of 7.5% for Tri-Way's trading business (and 29% for its aquaculture business), see quote below.
The trading gross margin was subsequently reduced to 10.5% in the recent press release on the credit facility, which also envisaged an increase to 18%-22% as a result of the new facilities and other, unspecified, factors.
However, I would rather expect the credit facilities to increase the volume of imports, as Tri-Way will get back its cash faster and therefore can place new orders sooner (in the presence of unlimited demand, see quote below). I do not see why the margins should increase.
Any thoughts?
What are Tri-way’s trajectory and plans?
In 2018, Tri-way’s existing farms – aquafarms 1-3 and 7 other open dams) -- generated sales revenue of approximately USD 100M. Production was 12,300 metric tons of mixed fish and Mexican White Prawns (“MWP”). Gross profit margin of 29% netted over USD 14M, not including aquafarms 4 and 5.
Tri-way started its trading business in September 2018. In March 2019, the trading business started generating USD 2.5M per month with gross profit margins of 13% and net margins of 7.5%. Sales are growing monthly. If we can maintain this trend we will qualify for substantially larger working capital loans. In this manner, the trading business can scale quite substantially in 2019 and geometrically equivalently in 2020, as demand for product simply does not appear to be a constraint.
I do, and I have replied. However, I also have a depå with Nordnet. The previous information I received from them indicated that the shares would be transferred to the depå. Obviously, keeping them in a KF is far better.