Post Reply
1141-1160 of 2220
agree... any lawyer bro want to give insight... $270k for 1 year work (not including 2013) is type of fee you would pay for completed deal or abandoned deal of this scale?
Bopanha ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 22:18) Posted:
|
$200K plus is nothing to a law firm lah. If you had been to SLC you know how big their office premises are. One whole floor of Ocean Building and fully furnished. They have so many corporate clients listed in Sgx.
that's the bearish comment
the bullish comment would be contel help them get special rate before RTO announce so they earn here.. and charge less there for 2013 fees.
you can say it in so many different way.. what is right?
srichipan ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 22:09) Posted:
|
Maybe they are shortist themselves and sold at $0.072??
SLC is now vested at 62. current close is 72
wa tmr they meet shortist how
Yah. They can just dump and get the money tmr? Agree to take the shares doesn't mean lawyer wants to be greedy and think the shares price will increase. Rather they got no choice but to take if not they know they will nv get the money. Just hypothesizing some scenarios. Don't flame me
That's why they are lawyers and we are just share retail players, hahaha. Lawyers have bigger brains, hehe.
gelu2279 ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 22:01) Posted:
|
The Issue Price represents a discount of 10% to the volume weighted average price of S$ 0.0693 for trades done on the Shares on the SGX - ST on 9 April 2013 (being the full market day on which the Settlement Agreement was entered into between the Company and SLC).
Nice ah... settle agreement when price is low.
Lawyer also need to eat ba... I think they probably promise stanford once deal is sealed sure got $ return them otherwise why would stanford grant credit term that is so long?
maybe no RTO stanford buay tahan ask them pay in shares. so if tmr morning u see queue 4.3M shares you know from where liao LOL
stanford got these on the cheap but cheap is relative haha
srichipan ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 21:27) Posted:
|
I think the BBs dumped first and then started to buy when their target was reached. Now we know that the lawyers accepted the payment's worth of app 7 cents per share. Then this means we can still expect the shares to appreciate when RTO is announced.
Wah. It's just like asking, Is it human being looking at butterfly or was it butterfly laughing at human beings? Hmm
There are too many setup behind our monitor/screen.
Not a bad thing, my personal view only.
Not a bad thing, my personal view only.
These announcements look darn intentional to stir uncertainty... yesterday's accounting story created fear, today's announcement was more neutral. The share issue had minimal dilution impact but bulls/bears will have different logic and reasoning for the action.
Both episodes have none to little impact to company operations/cash flow in the long term.
srichipan ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 21:36) Posted:
|
I recall I read about the auditor's report for TT Int for the financial year ended 31 March 2012 which had " going concern" issue for 12 months after year end as well. The auditor's report was dated in July 2012 (see http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/VwAttachments/Att_08EE25D2AD36E6DC48257A3E0039219C/$file/Auditors_Report_and_Note2.pdf?openelement ). The share price in July 2012 was about 0.08 and today share price is about double of the price then. TT Int still in existence as of today.
My point is even if RTO deal is not going through for Contel Corp, it doesn't mean that the Company is going to collapse within 12 months after the balance sheet date. The Auditor did not say Contel Corp WILL collapse too. The auditors only said there is " uncertainties" ... TT Int is a disclaimer opinion and Contel Corp is just an " emphasis of matter" , which is much less significant, i think... ( to all auditor, correct me if I am wrong...)
PS: I am not vested in TT Int now and not promoting the share.
srichipan ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 21:36) Posted:
|
Bro, they could have discussed the issue earlier on and came to the conclusion to pay and also allow the auditor to release the statement of opinion.
srichipan ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 21:36) Posted:
|
It's kinda bad investor relations by the company not with the announcement but rather the way they present it or by the lack of explanation. THEN AGAIN they might be manipulating with all those bad news so that they can collect cheap. Hmm. Not easy
Hey you got a good point. How about because of the auditor's comment. They have to reduce debt if not it will raise going concern issues and hence questioning from SGX (Assuming RTO is not going thru)
1963411 ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 21:31) Posted:
|
No point arguing on right or wrong, can or cannot do this or that. Let the market tell us tomorrow. Maybe wrong time, but whether they like it or not, they have to pay for services. So by cash also can, and by shares also can. Currently before rto proposal is complete, there are not much liquid cash, but there are also not much debts, so there is always a hope.
I also don't see the need to pay debt now, just before the RTO announcement date, if RTO is not going through... The legal costs were for the period from July 2011 to July 2012. Why pay not by issuing shares but not earlier or later..? It puzzled me too... 9 months credit term provided by the legal adviser?
Peace! Don't shoot me...
Many companies that are cash tight are doing it as an alternative to paying cash. The lawyers are the ones making big money.
srichipan ( Date: 09-Apr-2013 21:27) Posted:
|