logo
Dynacor Refuses to Call Requisitioned Special Meeting – iolite calls Meeting for April 9, 2025

Dynacor Refuses to Call Requisitioned Special Meeting – iolite calls Meeting for April 9, 2025

iolite Capital Management AG, a Switzerland-based investment manager, requisitioned a Special Shareholder Meeting of Dynacor Group Inc. (TSX:DNG, the Company) on January 30 to have Mr. Robert Leitz, elected to the board. Dynacor has failed to call the meeting, as required. Consequently, iolite is now calling the meeting itself, which will be held on April 9, 2025, at 10 am ET. Further details regarding the meeting's location and logistics will be announced shortly.
Dynacor's unnecessary, heavily discounted, and unfair capital raise exposed major governance flaws.
This, along with the board's subsequent actions, raises serious concerns regarding entrenchment and a misalignment with fiduciary duties. Shareholders deserve better representation, communication, and accountability.
iolite, the Company's largest shareholder, seeks to have Mr. Leitz, elected to Dynacor's board to protect value, ensure fair and responsible capital allocation, and drive sustainable earnings-per-share growth. This is in the Company's best interest.
More than 30 days after iolite's requisition, Dynacor has neither convened a meeting nor offered a meaningful proposal to address the situation. Instead, the Company has chosen to ignore iolite's voice, dismiss its rightful call for a special meeting, block a justified board seat request with false arguments, and persist in dilatory tactics - all while a constructive process initiated and maintained by iolite remains active.
Dynacor's lack of M&A and international expansion experience, combined with the CEO's suggestion of further dilutive raises, underscores the need for improved oversight. This is particularly urgent given the Company's significant cash reserves, which are at risk of being mismanaged.
Shareholders should be concerned that 2025 guidance shows severely eroding profitability despite record production volumes and historically high gold prices.
Capital Raise & Capital Allocation Concerns
On January 28 and 29, iolite met with board members in Montreal to discuss the state of matters at Dynacor and Mr. Leitz's potential board appointment, the Company's growth strategy, funding needs, and its persistent undervaluation. The Company had arranged for Mr. Leitz to meet the remaining board members as a final step in a lengthy nomination process. However, on January 30 - while Mr. Leitz was en route to the airport - Dynacor unexpectedly announced an unnecessary and heavily discounted capital raise. This move directly contradicted iolite's indications that such a raise was not in the best interest of Dynacor, especially given the recent record earnings, dividend increase, and share buybacks. Notably, the Company made no mention of exploring alternative financing options, such as factoring or bank debt, despite Mr. Leitz suggesting the day before that cheaper financing solutions were available if ever needed.
The raise immediately and unnecessarily destroyed C$25 million (US$17 million) in shareholder value, a loss likely to compound over time. Many existing shareholders, including iolite, were excluded from participating in this handpicked offering, creating an inherently unfair situation. Subsequent press releases from Dynacor confirmed that the Company had no immediate need for a capital raise - a fact that further frustrated shareholders who already suspected as much.
The Company's 2025 guidance projects positive free cash flow, including growth initiatives, and underscores that Dynacor's balance sheet was and remains overcapitalized. With a growth-adjusted net profit margin projected at 5% - a multi-year low compared to the 8% reported in Q3 2024 - the sharp decline in profitability remains a critical concern, particularly considering record production volumes and record-high gold prices.
Key Financial Metrics
US$ million
FY 23
LTM Sep 24
pre raise
LTM Sep 24
post raise
Guidance 25
LOW
Guidance 25
HIGH
Market cap @ C$ 5.50/share
138
138
160
Net cash
22
42
65
Net working capital
30
19
19
Enterprise value
86
77
76
Sales
250
284
284
345
375
EBITDA
25
31
31
NPAT (net profit) adjusted for growth
15
21
21
14+3
17+3
Margin
6.0%
7.4%
7.4%
4.9%
5.3%
Capex - excl. Senegal
7
4
4
8
5
Capex - Senegal
7
5
FCF (NPAT + D&A - total capex)
13
21
21
6
14
EV/EBITDA
3.4x
2.5x
2.5x
Dividends
3
4
4
Buybacks
3
6
6
Key Questions
iolite's well-founded questions and concerns continue to be disregarded by the Company:
Buyback program: What drove the decision to halt the buyback program on November 8, and why was no public statement issued at the time?
Dividend increase vs. dilution: Why did the Company announce a dividend increase on December 19, only to surprise the market with a discounted capital raise on January 30? This dilution more than erases the benefit of the dividend payout - it's highly unusual for a company to raise equity while increasing its dividend.
Disclosure: Given that the Company's growth plans have been known for some time, why was there no communication to public investors about a potential equity raise?
Upsizing the raise: What prompted the decision to increase the size of the capital raise? What necessity did this serve, and what benefits were expected from doing so?
Rights offering: Why wasn't a rights offering conducted, which would have given all shareholders an opportunity to participate?
Discount on the raise: The capital was raised at a 10% discount, despite board members stating on January 28 and 29 that the Company was undervalued. What is the explanation for this apparent contradiction?
'Broad shareholder support': Board members claim 'broad shareholder support' for these decisions. On what basis is this claim made? Which shareholders - by percentage or otherwise - actually supported the raise?
Alternative financing options: Why didn't the Company explore other financing options, such as factoring or debt financing, instead of opting for a deep discount equity offering that destroys value?
Further capital raises: Board members have indicated the need for further capital raises. What justifies this need, especially considering that the Company appears overcapitalized despite its ambitious growth plans?
Board members confirmed that no capital raise was planned as recently as late November. So why the sudden urgency? Dynacor was undervalued with no immediate need for capital? Issuing discounted shares for an undervalued company without pressing capital needs is not responsible. In December, the Company's shares traded at an average daily volume of 40,370 shares (~C$ 242,220 at C$ 6.00/share) - indicative of sufficient liquidity. iolite itself was able to purchase 10% of the Company primarily through open-market transactions.
Governance Concerns
Dynacor urgently needs additional perspective representation aligned with the owners of the Company on its board to protect shareholder value, ensure fair and responsible capital allocation, and drive sustainable earnings-per-share growth. This urgency is heightened by the Company's significant cash reserves, which are at risk of being mismanaged. Dynacor lacks a proven track record in M&A and international expansion, and the CEO has already hinted at further dilutive raises on the horizon.
Over the years, iolite has been a steadfast supporter of Dynacor's vision - even urging the Company to take on more risk by accelerating international expansion. Bringing Mr. Leitz onto the board would infuse the team with highly relevant expertise, a deep understanding of the business, and a true ownership perspective. As one of nine directors bound by fiduciary duties, he would offer essential insights to ensure fair capital allocation, support sustainable EPS growth, and boost corporate credibility. Appointing Mr. Leitz is in the Company's best interest.
Any reasonable leadership team and board would welcome such a major shareholder's representative to help drive a shared vision. Instead, Dynacor has chosen to ignore iolite's voice, dismiss its call for a special meeting, block a justified board seat request with false arguments, and persist in sending threatening letters. Shareholders deserve better.
iolite has repeatedly expressed its wishes to avoid legal battles and public confrontations. Regrettably, the Company has failed to take any meaningful steps toward resolving the situation. Dynacor could have - and still can - recognize the proper exercise of shareholders' rights and engage constructively with a significant shareholder to add a director to the board who can bring not only experience but also a much-needed different perspective in the best interest of the Company. The refusal to either do so or call the special meeting of shareholders does not reflect the standards directors should uphold and gives the impression that the motivation is to entrench existing directors aligned with management.
About iolite
Founded in 2011 by Robert Leitz, iolite Capital is a Switzerland-based investment manager with a focus on hidden champions: good businesses at attractive valuations. iolite serves a select circle of private and institutional clients who share the same entrepreneurial mindset, are willing to invest for the long term, and who would like to have first-hand access to a dedicated portfolio manager with substantial and meaningful skin in the game. Using a private equity approach, iolite conducts deep fundamental research, constructively engages with management, and adopts a long-term investment horizon. For more information on iolite, please visit www.iolitecapital.com.
About Robert Leitz
Robert Leitz brings 25 years of experience in finance and commodities. His expertise in international M&A and distressed debt investing equips him to contribute effectively to the Company's success. iolite holds a diverse portfolio of commodity-related investments across Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and Africa. Before founding iolite, Mr. Leitz held positions at Glencore and several financial institutions, including TPG Credit, Goldman Sachs' European Special Situations Group, and KPMG Corporate Restructuring. He holds a Master of Science in Business Administration and Economics from the University of St. Gallen (HSG), Switzerland, and completed his master's thesis under the guidance of Prof. Eli Noam at Columbia University, New York.
Information in Support of Public Broadcast Solicitation
The information contained in this news release does not and is not meant to constitute a solicitation of a proxy by iolite within the meaning of applicable corporate and securities laws. Although iolite has requisitioned a meeting (the 'Special Meeting') of the shareholders of Dynacor, there is currently no record or meeting date and shareholders are not being asked at this time to execute a proxy in favor of iolite`s nominee or any other resolutions set forth in the requisition. In connection with the Special Meeting, iolite is voluntarily providing the disclosure required under sections 9.2(4) and 9.2(6) of National Instrument 51-102 – Continuous Disclosure Obligations in accordance with corporate and securities laws applicable to public broadcast solicitations.
This news release and any solicitation made by iolite in advance of the Special Meeting is, or will be, as applicable, made by iolite and not by or on behalf of the management of Dynacor.
Shareholders of Dynacor are not being asked at this time to execute proxies in favor of iolite's nominee (in respect of the Special Meeting) or any other resolution that may be set forth in the requisition. iolite intends to make its solicitation primarily by mail, but proxies may also be solicited personally by telephone, email or other electronic means, as well as by newspaper or other media advertising or in person. In addition, iolite may solicit proxies in reliance upon the public broadcast exemption to the solicitation requirements under applicable Canadian corporate and securities laws, by way of public broadcast, including press release, speech or publication, and in any other manner permitted under applicable Canadian laws. Any members, partners, directors, officers or employees of iolite and its affiliates or other persons who solicit proxies on behalf of iolite will do so for no additional compensation. The costs incurred in the preparation and mailing of a circular in connection with the Special Meeting, and the solicitation of proxies by iolite will be borne by iolite, provided that, subject to applicable law, iolite may seek reimbursement from Dynacor of iolite's out-of-pocket expenses, including proxy solicitation expenses and legal fees, incurred in connection with a successful vote at the Special Meeting.
+41 79 227 29 08
SOURCE: iolite Capital Management AG
Copyright Business Wire 2025.
PUB: 03/06/2025 05:32 AM/DISC: 03/06/2025 05:32 AM

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

FanDuel appears ready to sacrifice bettors on the altar of lower taxes
FanDuel appears ready to sacrifice bettors on the altar of lower taxes

USA Today

time42 minutes ago

  • USA Today

FanDuel appears ready to sacrifice bettors on the altar of lower taxes

FanDuel appears ready to sacrifice bettors on the altar of lower taxes Last week, we talked about the new online sports betting tax in Illinois that would hit operators with a 25 cent fee for each of the first 20 million bets they take and a 50 cent fee for every bet after that -- and how those operators appeared ready to pass those fees on to customers. On Tuesday, FanDuel became the first operator to do just that. In response to the new Illinois tax (which followed a separate increase in 2024), FanDuel announced the addition of a 50-cent transaction fee for every bet by Illinois customers beginning Sept. 1, which is two months after the tax goes into effect on July 1 and, according to InGame, the month when the operator is likely to hit the 20-million bet threshold that triggers the 50-cent tax. FanDuel would effectively eat the first two months of the tax at 25 cents. "Should the state reverse its decision at any point in the future, FanDuel will immediately remove the $0.50 transaction fee," the statement said. If that doesn't make obvious what FanDuel is attempting to do -- use bettors to pressure lawmakers into retracting the new tax -- Flutter CEO Peter Jackson's words should: "We are disappointed that the Illinois Transaction Fee will disproportionately impact lower wagering recreational customers while also punishing those operators who have invested the most to grow the online regulated market in the state. We also believe the introduction of the Illinois Transaction Fee will likely motivate some Illinois-based customers to bet with unregulated operators." It's all right there. FanDuel isn't wrong that this transaction fee has the potential to push some customers to unregulated operators -- particularly if other regulated operators follow suit with their own fees -- but that can only happen if said operators are passing the fee to customers in the first place. Remember, this is originally a tax on the operator. Then again, that seems to be the point. Bettors are set to get the raw end of this deal, and FanDuel is doing its part to make sure lawmakers get the blame. Whether that's fair is a question for someone smarter than myself. I have no clue whether the new taxes actually are too exorbitant to expect operators to continue eating the costs. But that's obviously what they want us to believe, and they appear willing to sacrifice customers to prove as much -- because not everyone is going to care the reasons behind why a $1 bet is costing them $1.50. They'll just take their business elsewhere. After last year's Illinois tax increase, DraftKings announced its own plans for a surcharge that never actually saw the light of day after other operators didn't follow suit. This time, it's FanDuel putting its brand loyalty to the test in what feels like an attempt to make lawmakers to reverse course. But with three months before these transaction fees are set to hit customers, that pressure will eventually shift to FanDuel to follow through. The unfortunate part about this game of chicken between operator and government is that bettors are the ones caught between the headlights.

Asian shares make modest gains as investors eye US-China talks
Asian shares make modest gains as investors eye US-China talks

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Asian shares make modest gains as investors eye US-China talks

Asian shares were marginally higher on Tuesday as investors kept an eye on US-China trade talks that might help stave off a recession. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 gained 0.9% to 38,445.68, while the Kospi in South Korea jumped 0.3% to 2,865.12. Hong Kong's Hang Seng edged 0.3% higher, to 24,261.26 and the Shanghai Composite index was up 0.1% at 3,403.52. In Taiwan, the Taiex surged 2.1% to 22.253,46. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 advanced just less than 0.9% to 8.588,10. On Monday, the S&P 500 edged up just 0.1% and at 6,005.88 is within 2.3% of its record set in February. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped by 1 point, which is well below 0.1%, to 42,761.76. The Nasdaq composite added 0.3% to 19,591.24. A second day of talks between the US and China was planned after the two global powers met in London for negotiations. The hope is that they can eventually reach a deal to reduce painfully high tariffs against each other. Most of the tariff hikes imposed since US President Donald Trump escalated his trade war have been paused to allow trade in everything from tiny tech gadgets to enormous machinery. Hopes that President Donald Trump will lower his tariffs after reaching trade deals with countries around the world have helped the S&P 500 win back gains after it dropped roughly 20% from its record two months ago. The index is back above where it was when Trump shocked financial markets in April with his wide-ranging tariff announcement on so-called 'Liberation Day'. Related Chip designer Alphawave sees stock soar on Qualcomm takeover agreement China accuses US of violating trade truce and vows firm retaliation Some of the market's biggest moves came from the announcement of big buyout deals. Qualcomm rallied 4.1% after saying it agreed to buy Alphawave Semi in a deal valued at $2.4bn (€2.1bn). IonQ, meanwhile, rose 2.7% after the quantum computing and networking company said it agreed to purchase Oxford Ionics for nearly $1.08bn (€947.1mn). On the losing side of Wall Street was Warner Bros. Discovery, which flipped from a big early gain to a loss of 3% after saying it would split into two companies. One will get Warner Bros. Television, HBO Max and other studio brands, while the other will hold onto CNN, TNT Sports and other entertainment, sports and news television brands around the world, along with some digital products. Tesla recovered some of its sharp, recent drop. The electric vehicle company tumbled last week as Elon Musk's relationship with Trump broke apart, and it rose 4.6% on Monday after flipping between gains and losses earlier in the day. The frayed relationship could end up damaging Musk's other companies that get contracts from the US government, such as SpaceX. Rocket Lab, a space company that could pick up business at SpaceX's expense, rose 2.5%. In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury eased to 4.48% from 4.51% late Friday. It fell after a survey by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that consumers' expectations for coming inflation eased slightly in May. Economists expect a report due on Wednesday to show that inflation across the country accelerated last month to 2.5% from 2.3%. The Federal Reserve has been keeping its main interest rate steady as it waits to assess the inflationary effects of Trump's tariffs. A persistent increase in inflation expectations among US households could drive behaviour that creates a vicious cycle that only worsens inflation. In other dealings early on Tuesday, US benchmark crude oil picked up 31 cents to $65.45 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, also gained 31 cents, to $67.35. The dollar rose to 144.93 Japanese yen from 144.61 yen. The euro slipped to $1.1399 from $1.1421.

Car Shipments to the US Have Fallen Off a Cliff. Guess Why
Car Shipments to the US Have Fallen Off a Cliff. Guess Why

Motor 1

timean hour ago

  • Motor 1

Car Shipments to the US Have Fallen Off a Cliff. Guess Why

Sea-based car shipments to the United States fell off a cliff in May, down over 70 percent versus the same time last year, according to Automotive News . Citing trade database Descartes Datamyne, the report claims there were nearly 10,000 fewer vehicles imported via ocean ports. The report shows a 72.3 percent drop in imports throughout the month of May compared to the same period last year. Descartes Datamyne says importers shipped roughly 9,380 fewer "20-foot equivalent units" to the US. One 20-foot equivalent unit is equal to about one vehicle, depending on size. The data also recorded a 14.8 percent drop in imports for auto parts and accessories. "It's almost impossible to reach any other conclusion than this is the impact of vehicle tariffs manifesting itself in import volumes," Jackson Wood, director of industry strategy for global trade intelligence at Descartes Systems Group, told Autonews . "My read on this is that importers are pausing, hoping that more favorable tariff conditions will emerge in the medium term." The data above doesn't take land-based shipments from Canada or Mexico into account—only sea-based imports from places like Asia and Europe. Still, it paints a worrisome picture for inventory levels in the US. Before tariffs went into effect in April, automakers loaded up on dealership inventory, hoping to avoid raising prices for buyers. Now, predictably, companies are waiting to see if anything changes before they start shipping cars again. But they can only wait so long. According to Kelly Blue Book , automakers nationwide had an average of 66 days worth of inventory—that is, the number of days before they sell every car sitting on the lot—before running out. It won't be long before automakers will have to start shipping cars en masse again to keep up with demand. And if tariff policies don't change, that'll mean big price hikes. More on Tariffs Bentley Has You Covered On Tariffs—For Now Volvo CEO: Customers Must Pay Tariff Costs, Not Us Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily. back Sign up For more information, read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use . Share this Story Facebook X LinkedIn Flipboard Reddit WhatsApp E-Mail Got a tip for us? Email: tips@ Join the conversation ( )

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store