To be clear, I'm not talking about consolidation, but only about the removal of our nominal value barrier. A different matter. Consolidation on its own won't make a difference. Fewer shares but a higher sp, so the same value is reflected in our holdings. It's the barrier removal, fundraise below that level, then consolidation to make everything appear ok that bothers me.
Thanks for your earlier comments. I'm optimistic that we have decent assets which can be processed for eventual revenue, but I still remain wary, particularly after my experience with Beacon Hill, which went into administration. That share had the safety of the nominal value removed, which turned out to be the start of extreme depreciation in terms of shareholder value. I unfortunately voted in favour of it too at the time, in the hope that it would work out, because Beacon was almost bankrupt anyway. However, it still didn't work. Quite the opposite in fact. Shareholders were rinsed further, with massive discount dilutions and the sp almost hit absolute zero. Then, kaput. The difference being, BMR has £950k in the bank and no debt, so AB shouldn't now, in my view, even be contemplating such a move as the removal of our nominal value in order to make it simpler to fundraise. He needs to have bulletproof reasons to convince me that this is in our interests, and not just an easy route to quick finance funded by his contacts in the City, at a cost in real terms to existing shareholders.
Sympathetic consideration will be given by Zema whatever the fook that means. You are right an early approval is paramount, so I hope they will see the potential AB brings to the table and approve the alternative production process quickly. Retracting our licence would be unthinkable, although potentially something that could happen considering the situation. Time to shut up shop then for good. What a blinking mess this has become, we are very much in a corner and have limited viable options out of this situation.
I was willing to give AB the benefit of doubt but having seen those motions I think true colours have been shown. In particular the one where we give up our rights to a RI? Which is how I read No 10? Please correct me if I'm wrong. We are being set up to be squeezed out IMV. We have no debt and a substantial resource even if it is just the WPT and LPT. Not happy at all that this is the best on offer
My only fear is that a second bite at the ZEMA cherry is by no means a foregone conclusion. The last approval took many months interspersed with extra demands so even if they do approve, with all that has been uncovered I can't see it being a quick process. Worst case scenario, they decide BMR can't be trusted to deliver and cancel our licences. Not wishing to sound negative but my optimism begins with, hopefully, an early approval. Any less and we're finished imho.
Thanks for your email of 14 April 2015 regarding the firm - Berkeley Mineral Resources. I read your email with interest, and was sorry to learn about the position as described and the frustration and anxiety this is causing you. I appreciate why you've chosen to bring this issue to our attention.
Alternative Investment Market (AIM) regulation
AIM companies are regulated by a dedicated team at the London Stock Exchange (LSE) called AIM Regulation. If you haven't already done so, you may find it useful raising your concerns to the AIM Regulation department of the LSE directly. This department has the responsibility of regulating and supervising firms listed on the AIM. I've provided a link to the relevant section of their website explaining how you can contact them:
LSE - AIM Regulation
What I'll do with the information you sent me
Your concerns have been passed to our Market Abuse Team for review and they will consider the issues that you've raised. They will review the information you've provided very carefully with a view to determining whether it is appropriate to exercise any of our statutory powers in respect of market abuse.
Please be aware that we do not generally give you any feedback on how we have followed up the information you have given us. This is because of confidentiality restrictions in legislation, and if any further information is required, the Market Abuse team will contact you.
To help manage your expectations, I should explain that we don't have the powers to investigate individual complaints. What we can do is provide factual information and relevant guidance to help consumers on to their next steps, and the information you provide will be used as internal intelligence. We make sure firms follow our rules so that consumers are treated fairly and financial markets work as they should, what you have told us today will help us with this.
For more information regarding the FCA's market abuse regime, the Code of Market Conduct and/or the Market Conduct Team, please visit our website here.
You can also forward further information about the firm/firm director to the Market Abuse Team for their consideration. You can contact them directly:
telephone: 020 7066 4900.
I hope you find my email helpful, and thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
To help us improve our service, we are interested in finding out about your experience with the Contact Centre today. We will send you a link to a survey and we would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to share your feedback with us.
BMR are currently not on the bones of its ar5e with circa £800K cash in the bank, £40K cash burn pm. Let's wait for approval (surely no more than 2-3 months) and perhaps consolidation or dilution wont be required if on approval a JV can be established. In the meantime vote NO more pain no gain.
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.