MOZ Supreme Court can't realistically stretch this any longer....! There appears to be no way / dialogue with the courts...seem to be doing their own thing and when they want. There must be a timetable somewhere?
The original RTO acquisition applied the following allocations/changes of PFP ordinary shares, so the General had a very significant holding, and he would had a major vote on the remuneration committee. Timing as you say may be telling though.
Existing Pathfinder Holding Percentage Existing Holding Total Number of Shares following issue of the Consideration Shares Percentage of Ordinary Shares upon Completion Diogo Cavaco - - 88,129,280 10.89% Gordon Dickie 300,000 0.61% 89,806,920 11.10% John McKeon 350,000 0.71% 121,209,700 14.98% JV Consultores - - 110,120,680 13.61% Nicholas Trew 3,333,333 6.73% 90,375,753 11.17% Tim Baldwin 5,166,666 10.43% 115,128,316 14.22%
Just regular performance related options with a stretching 10p strike price. Which is BTW a very nice target to be reminded of :)
These allocations are normally strongly tilted to the Executive rather than non-exec board, which may explain the big skew in numbers. If the SP really was 10p then I don't think we'd be complaining. :)
Are we getting value for money ? well if we end up with 3p+ then probably yes ... anything less then it makes you wonder. This case doesn't look like rocket science.
Keeping the greed theme going for a while, it is worth looking at the company RNS's around the time of the licence theft. 02Aug11 RNS reports the granting of share options to the then Board - giving up to 36million shares to various directors BUT only 1million to the General (and zero to Cavaco). Then just 3 months later, RNS dated 11Nov11 reports the shares have been suspended due to the transfer of licences!! Maybe the greed is more on the side of the Board rather than the General/Cavaco and that the transfer of licences was in retaliation! Any thoughts on that?
aye, however our esteemed judge, unless mis-quoted refers to an option to buy shares which confered ownership to IMM. Which appears nonsense, the purchase was in shares in PFP. Only the additional bonus payment of $9,9m is a contingent liability based on the trigger of the mines going into production i,e, manufacturing contract signed.
This is a very common type of arrangement, whereby the bonus is paid only when certain operation targets are met. In this case the point where they commit to actually develop the mine.
Apologies if I mis-understand or mis-quote the leaned Judges, but inaccuracies like that on something so fundamental to the legal challenge, cannot help in accelerating it's resolution. A contingent liability and an option are very different beasts. We have the former listed on our Annual Accounts and thus approved by auditors.
Please correct me if I am wrong.... but I think they are making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
John, there really isn't any tangible defense. IMHO it has always looks like a simple case of human greed and common theft - proven without a shadow of doubt in the UK's highest court by some of the best judges available. What I find difficult to reconcile is why haven't the police been involved, especially as the other-side have been trying to flog the licence - or isn't fencing stolen goods an illegal activity anymore? Mozambique are a Commonwealth country are they not?
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.