Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I notice the reports comments dont say anything about linking salary with share price and the risk the BOD takes when the shareholders are losing money and all they see is GREED.
Gerry I totally agree with your last statement. UNfortuneately my shares in several companys, are held in Trustee account.
Events here have opened my eyes, and am hoping to get paper certs. I am not holding my breathe as I think the Broker will only let me deal with shares held in Trust.
It is a diabolical situation. So much for Margaret Thatcher's share owning democracy
Fairdealer20
I assume you have informed PB of your holding that could possibly be used by way of share certificates. The 5% used to request the EGM were unfortunately all held by nominees so it is going to be difficult to reach the required threshold.
If there are any more EOG shareholders who hold certificates or could arrange to have them, it would be a good idea to let PB know of your holdings. Unfortunately none of my 1% are available.
We cannot let WH get away with treating shareholders so shabbily.
Https://twitter.com/europaoilandgas/status/1734201333681394025?s=46&t=yb4bY8lQ32WiMrlMFx8_yQ
Gerry, realise SIPPs and Isa's have restrictions, however there will be some who. like me, are not trapped. I am exploring the issuance of certificates .
@ fairdealer20,
It is my understanding that Inland Revenue rules are that shares held in ISAs and SIPPs have to be held via a Nominee so unfortunately you will not be able to have shares certificates held in that way.
Hopefully this week for data on production?
Considering the issues here with trustee accounts and that the same issue could affect anyone with stock in other companys, maybe having paper certs is the answer? Realise brokers will not be happy and may have rules in place that require investors to leave shares in trust?
Brokers can and do loan shares to shorters. Not many investors realise. Paper certificates do stop this practice.
Something to think about and get proper rights as a shareholder???
Can you tell me if the amount of shares in issue were 99 million , 137 million when you resigned. Many thanks.
Term, tell us what you think?
Interesting, although is it hiding behind the law or abiding to the law?
@itsawrap. Interesting! Do you know when the RBD EGM is scheduled? Could be one to watch in terms of how it plays out as clearly similar dissatisfaction - it seems we are not alone in Directors taking reward without the risk experienced by shareholders.
Itsawrap.
It looks like the Reabold shareholder’s shares were all held with the same nominee i.e. Pershing, which was then used to request their AGM being ‘the holder as nominee’ of the underlining beneficial owners (listed) the ‘Requisitioning shareholders, holding at least 5 per cent of the paid-up share capital of the company.
The six EOG shareholder’s shares used to request the EGM are held in 4 different nominee accounts so presumably none would have sufficient number of shares to become the 5%.
Even though we can vote at an AGM/EGM via our nominees (as we have to hold shares in an ISA and SIPP in nominee accounts), the same is not the case when requesting an EGM and that is the anomaly that WH used to refuse the request.
Thanks Gerry - I’ll look up the ShareSoc petition - seems to be an area that needs improvement. That said if the requisition did not legally trigger the EGM I still think it would be bizarre for a CEO to call an EGM to vote on his own competence if not required to - didn’t John Major do something similar and got rightly ridiculed for it?
This how Reabold shareholders have requisitioned a GM.
https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/wp-content/uploads/Reabold-Resources-Requisition-Notice-15-November.pdf
I think the rules need changing. If you have your shares in HL etc they become the nominated holder. I obtained HLs certification that I owned the shares that I used to vote but as HL were nominated holders they did not count - law needs to change
Serif.
I'm not sure of the specific reason for the request being refused but apparently the application was illegal because of some inexact rules on Aim but WH was hiding behind the rules as they are. There is a petition being organised by ShareSoc, mentioned in a post on the 28th November, to get some clarification on the Aim market. Perhaps someone can clear this up for us.
I’m not clear Gerry - are you saying the application was technically valid or not? Because so far I’ve only seen suggestions that it was “ morally” wrong to refuse an EGM rather than technically wrong/illegal - which would change the position considerably!
Term and Tony,
PB was aware of a potential issue with nominees and went to great lengths to arrange the required 5% (which is all that was required). There was substantially more than 5% of shares available to him but he concentrated on the required number with letters of conformation from the Nominees which was a challenge in itself.
Tony, you say it is reasonable to assume that PB would have submitted a further request for an EGM if there was another way around it but as I have mentioned earlier the timing is not in the best interests of success if another avenue was actually an option.
I suggest we all wait and see what happens as ‘Letting the cat out of the bag’ or ‘Showing your hand’ is not a good idea.
Watch this space.
Tony, PB would have been aware of the issue with nominees prior to submitting the EGM - but went ahead anyway.
Also, on another point, the "Requisitioning Shareholders” own a combined shareholding of approximately 5.24%, which is a relatively small % when you consider what PB holds. Which tells me he simply does not have the backing required
Gerry - keep repeating your 7th December post - but it doesnt appear to answer the question. There does appear to be some logistical hurdle in submitting a valid request otherwise its reasonable to assume that PB would have done so.
In theory it is simple for 5% or more of holders to approach Hargreaves (and or other niminees) and ask them to submit a valid requisition to Europa on behalf of the underlying shareholders - why was PB not able to do this. Thats the question. As for timing - thats all detail that can be figured out later - step 1 - figure out how to submit a valid requisition !
I'll repeat my 7th December post.
"Upon the submission of a valid request, the board of directors of the company must call for an extraordinary general meeting within three weeks. In case the board fails to do so, the members can themselves call the EGM within three months of depositing the request."
So I don't think now is a sensible time to call an EGM as WH would probably call it Christmas week hoping no-one turns up and whilst being diverted preparing for Christmas, would not be voting in large numbers.
Perhaps a new application will be made in the New Year. Fingers crossed.
Watch this space.
Isn’t there another way around this apparent block? Of the 50.1% of supporting votes you need to win a vote at any EGM surely there must be 5% of those who own shares in their own names who could request it? I think PB mention WA at the start of this process - they worked together and he knows all the people involved and has enough shares. But if he is unwilling to support it for some reason, then there must be others if this has that level of support.
You should read Company Governace. Directors are appointed to protect shareholder's interests. Now think about what is going on here. A few PI's are just lying down and taking it, not me.
Is that statement Nonsense?
" It does seem some PI's, balanced or otherwise, approve the huge remuneration awards"
I dont think any PI's approve the "huge renumeration awards" - why are you posting such nonesense. Your posts used to be a little bit more sensible - what has happend to you !
I for one would be happy to push for an EGM and the opportunity to get our opinions heard. I'm all for voting on some resolutions about the number of directors / reducing SG&A to a level commensurate with the size of the business and other areas of shareholder concern.