It's not a surprise for me.
One of L1's tactics is to find a company somewhat desperate for funds, provide funding via CN, then make a mint out of the company if it is a success, or conversely attempt to make something out of the company while flogging it to death on the terms of the CN all the while dumping shares on the market destroying shareholders equity.
If that is the case they continually dump on market thus driving down the price, while at the same time shorting the same company.
That seems to be what L1 did with XPE, and I see no reason for L1's MO to change.
For further information see the following post from
@RobbieinAus on XPE's CN with L1
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/24870774/single
The terms of BRN's CN are different (and better than XPE's which was highly suspicious) of course.
I have read the terms about 10 times and it's making my head hurt, so it would be good if someone else could analyse it on this thread.
Anyway I'll give it my best shot.
What I do see is:
- BRN have paid the roughly $300,000 interest immediately by essentially receiving $300,000 less in funding
- BRN have paid the $85,000 drawdown fee immediately by issuing 1.5 million shares (I expect CST to liquidate these quickly)
- BRN have issued 30 million shares (collateral)
- if the CN is converted to shares then CST (L1's 'associate') will receive the shares at either 7.9c or 8% discount to 5 day VWAP
- if BRN try to raise again the CN must immediately be repayed / be converted
- BRN SOI 1,081,444,798, so 30 million shares is not an overly huge amount.
Three possible outcomes:
1. BRN is successful, revenue comes in, the CN is repayed and the 30 million shares returned to BRN.
BRN, shareholders, CST/L1 all win.
2. BRN continues business without generating sufficient revenue to repay the CN, CST convert the CN and continually dump on market while simultaneously shorting BRN to maximise CST's return.
BRN and shareholders lose. CST/L1 wins or loses depending on the SP at the time.
3. BRN struggles and raises again (perhaps after 3 extensions) which triggers the mandatory prepayment clause.
BRN and shareholders lose. CST/L1 wins.
Finally regarding the Socionext agreement.
I'm struggling to understand both the overly positive sentiment from some posters here about Socionext supporting BRN and being on board with BRN, and the language of the announcement.
BRN CEO states "with the firm backing by such a preeminent partner".
Nonsense.
BRN are paying SNA for product development and manufacturing of Akida.
This seems a good development for BRN, but it's not a JV and there is no support, or backing from SNA.
I have a contact working in a field very close to this and I'll ask him about BRN and see if he has ever heard of them.
I hope this works out for BRN, and I hope that the product is successful, they turn a profit, and all the shareholders benefit.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a BRN holder and never have been. I just sometimes show an interest in interesting aspects of random stocks found on the HC front page. I was a holder in XPE and luckily didn't get burned like a lot of unfortunates did)
(20min delay)