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.
Roses
the vote is before the shares are admissible, imo
ie actual cut off point to vote, is before, so they cannot admissible?
otherwise it would be same ole same ole, with G controlling the vote buy whom his appointed broker sells to?
however, this way with Phouse issuing , AFTER the meeting, G & S will stay or go, based on their ability to show us what they will do to improve things and try to save themselves (nothing so far as I am aware)
hence, it will be fairly voted on?
and not by the holders of these new shares imo? which if they were allowed, would have meant a repeat of each and every time, im guessing?
pretty sure the votes will be in and being counted, well before the new shares are issued?
but this is just my opinion as is your opinion?
not long to find out... hopefully and fingers crossed lol :)
Valju, the company announced the placing before the last vote on the consolidation and the dis application of pre emptive rights etc. And VAL said that the voting rights wouldn’t apply to that meeting. There was nothing mentioned about the new shares not being able to vote on the next meeting to remove the directors.
The shares will have by then been fully admissable and possibly even sold off ( I doubt it as I hear there has been an agreement not to dump the majority until after the next vote.)
If they are able to sell/trade those shares, then how would the company be able to restrict the voting rights on them after they have been admitted and able to be traded to the second hand shareholders ?
Agreed Valju. .perhaps the bod are listening to our constructive criticisms and sensible suggestions for improving performance and consequently share value.....time will tell!!!!
Roses...
These shares are NOT admissible until after the vote, so not quite so shrewd eh? Although a certain person is not particularly happy about that, or many other points, as I understand it! But, being told to adhere to the rules, is new ground I expect, especially when they wrote the rule book up until this point imo? Seems someone grew a pair and stood up to them?
If you hold and you intend to vote, if you really want GM and SV gone, then vote accordingly as it will be the current consolidated volume that has the say, as far as I am aware? Meaning if you held say 15.5 mil of the Co (1% aprox) your consolidated shares would still be (1% approx), ie same voting power? Just as it is known that any money raised will be used to better the Company by stabilising its finances, and not paying BoD wages! So, every vote counts, if you want to remove the leaches? All imo of course... dyor
Valju, I fear you may now be fighting a lost cause.
Yet again the company has underhandedly managed to issue more shares just before a vote to remove them.
These new voting shares issued yet again at the lowest ever point in the companies history will be used to vote with the directors votes.
It’s a lost cause yet again unless the vast majority of previously existing shareholders stand up and be counted.
You have to give it to the directors, they may be useless at scIence but they are shrewd business people.
(And by business I mean securing vastly inflated salaries and pensions for delivering SFA )
I honestly can’t believe people are still falling for it after 14 years of the same thing year in and year out.
We Did vote Initially For NO Consolidation. IMO
Some are some arent... but! I am surprised that many are waiting until the third one, to moan, indeed why has someone not tried before, to cohere the many, into a voting unit?
Surely MANY more should NOW be supporting the Share Action Group and voting to remove them ,as they have requisitioned this vote for?
Vote to remove BOTH George Morris and Satu Vanikker from the BoD?
Time is short so get your vote into your broker asap!
My average after at least two 125/1 consolidations is now £4.60.
Yep you heard it right. £4.60.
The BOD should be jailed.