Pteris Global

for long-suffering shareholders waiting perpetually for any meaningful turnaround , the RTO (or merger if you see it another way) is actually a positive development and maybe an exit strategy for some stakeholders. the hints were there when CIMC took a substantial stake in Aug 2012. it was always going to be an attractive target for regional peers, even given its lumpy performance.
having been earlier 'priced to die', the share price may edge higher than most people might want to believe. Based on the AR, there are unexercised employee share options from 0.16 to 0.77.

anyone already read up the reverse takeover proposal by cimec?

is it a gd deal for shareholders? understand that new shares will be (based on pre-consolidation) issued at 0.13and post-consolidation wise, the Chinese group will hold >60% of the company.

Winston Tan, who holds a 10.18% blocking (in the event of a privatisation GO) stake in Pteris Global has just launched an attack on its BOD possibly to extract better RTO terms from CIMC…..
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/PGL_Reqo...eID=289385 [Pteris Global's announcement]
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/WinmarkH...eID=289386 [Winston Tan's requisition notice of an EGM]

Could this lead to CIMC buying out Tan or even all the minority shareholders via a GO?

waos, this is interesting!

>10% minority shareholders give special notice and call for EGM to company!

Auditors KPMG LLP have qualified Pteris Global's FY13 (ended 31Dec13) financial accounts on the account of the group's massive losses in FY13, and the uncertainties of the proposed RTO transaction with CIMC Group which is subjected to shareholders' approval in an EGM to be convened…..
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/PGL-EOM-...eID=289585

From the document, it is interesting to note that CIMC Group is already standing as guarantor to Pteris' principal bank debts in a $52.0m revolving credit facility. So CIMC Group is already on the hook, and Pteris Global should continue to survive, unless CIMC Group decides to walk away after paying out another $52.0m to the banks.

Pteris Global Limited (“Pteris Global” or the “Company”) refers to the full year results
announcement released on 27 February 2014 (“Results Announcement”).
As set out in the Results Announcement, as at the end of the financial year ended 31 December
2013, the Group has breached certain bank covenants in relation to the loans from its principal
bankers. The Group did not fulfil the requirement to maintain tangible networth of no less than
S$40 million at all times. The banks are contractually entitled to request immediate repayment
of the outstanding loan amounts. Nevertheless, the Group has managed to obtain an agreement
from the banks to waive the breach for the financial year ended 31 December 2013.
The Company had on 17 April 2014 received the formal waiver letter and wishes to highlight to
shareholders that the waiver is effective as from 1 January 2014 to the earlier of the Reverse
Takeover Effective Date or 31 August 2014 and is subject to the following conditions:
(a) as a condition precedent to the waiver to become effective - receipt by the banks of the
executed financial support undertaking provided by CIMC to the Company; and
(b) as an ongoing requirement for the waiver to remain effective - the Company’s board of
directors to remain substantially unchanged until completion of the Reverse Takeover.

There is an article on the company, in the latest The Edge. The article gave a good overview of its issues. The immediate challenge is not the RTO, or the debt, but the showdown between board members.

(not vested)

This company is a good example of a "nobody's child" company. I recalled Mr. Yeo from Yeoman Capital Management, commented on "nobody's child" companies vs. family-owned companies.

The top 3 shareholders of the company are directly holding 15%, 10% and 6% of the company respectively, the rest are minority shareholders. It is true that minority shareholders are in fact, the majority.

Nobody care the company performance over the period 2008-2013, when company was having heavy losses.

(not vested)

Hope Winston gets it.

(21-04-2014, 10:58 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: This company is a good example of a "nobody's child" company. I recalled Mr. Yeo from Yeoman Capital Management, commented on "nobody's child" companies vs. family-owned companies.

The top 3 shareholders of the company are directly holding 15%, 10% and 6% of the company respectively, the rest are minority shareholders. It is true that minority shareholders are in fact, the majority.

Nobody care the company performance over the period 2008-2013, when company was having heavy losses.

(not vested)

Before 2008, it was somebody's child. The late founder used to own more than 30% of the company. The company was doing well until he sold out in 2007. That was also the last time any dividend was distributed.