Solgenics’ Delisting Risks Shareholder Value

Following my latest note on the company (Dec 1st 2022), interested investors will of course have seen the proposal to delist the shares from AIM on June 9th, if approved by a 75% vote at the forthcoming May 26th General Meeting. (See the shareholder letter 10th May on Solgenics’ web site.)

After the company’s reassuring news of progress on its Tete solar power project all the way up to only a month before the delisting news on May 3rd, and the previous news which encouraged me to think that, at last, shareholders could expect soon to see their shares at a reasonable value, that is of course an extremely disappointing development, made more so by the absence of any reassurance in the official document convening the AGM and stating the resolutions shareholders are to vote on, that their longer term interests will be safeguarded.

I am told the document is the bare legal notification that the nomad would allow to be published.

So I hope that at the General Meeting (which as a shareholder myself and having lost quite a sum so far I won’t be able to attend) the company will come forward with somewhat more reassurance.

I have no space, or time, here to say more than is in the document which investors should read thoroughly. And I don’t think the reasons given there for the delisting (to enable Solgenics to

fund its developments more effectively and cheaply while hiding sensitive matters from the prying eyes of competitors – and maybe predators) are to really deprive shareholders of the returns they’ve been holding on for many years.

However, the mechanics and legalities of becoming de-listed could make it much more difficult for them to achieve them.

I’ll say more if, as I hope, the company says more at the May 26th Meeting.

John Cornford: John is semi-retired after 40 years in City research of one sort or another covering most sectors, and an earlier career in the MoD and management consulting. As well as institutional research he has also long taken an interest in research for private investors, editing the long established and top performing Investors Stockmarket Weekly in the ‘90s, and later Small Cap Shares. In the noughties he worked for seven years with Hardman and published his own research for institutions via his FourSquare Research. He believes it is scandalous that the FCA’s misplaced rules have denied quality research to private investors - leaving them at the mercy of bucket shops and tipsters.