Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
Hi all,
Sorry for your losses, but I was wondering if someone wouldn't mind briefly explaining what happened here recently?
I am invested in KOD, and wary of Chinese investors, who own just under 30% of KOD.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Cheers
Thanks for the detailed comments. Much appreciated.
I'm going to share an email I received from Simon back in October where OTN Mining was reffered to. Dear ### I will try to answer your questions in accordance with information in the public domain. Using your numbering: 1. Loan security - I cannot comment beyond the details provided in the RNS of the original loan, which was published on 18 August 2014. You can find the RNS at this address: http://www.bellzone.com/images/downloads/bellzone-short-term-finance-update_18Aug14.pdf In the RNS the following is noted: "The Loan is secured by the entire issued share capital of Bellzone Holdings SA, Sadeka SARL (holder of the Sadeka Exploration Permit), OTN Mining Limited and Coastal Iron Development Limited (holder of Bellzone's interest in the Forécariah JV), each of which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company." Therefore the security includes our principal asset, Kalia (held by Bellzone Holdings SA) and other minor assets. 2. If Bellzone falls into administration, by definition the Jersey court-appointed administrator will act to wind down the company in accordance with Jersey law. It is not necessarily the case that the Kalia mining licence will remain with the group / company; our reading of the Guinean Mining Code (2011) is that under Guinean law, the licence automatically reverts to the Guinean State in the event of an insolvency, and that has been communicated to Hudson. So the administrator would not be "free" to sell the licence to anybody. Thank you for your email and your support. Kind regards,
Interesting view regarding OTN Kabisco...
Simon is an AIM Expert which means he knows every trick
of the trade to take from investors and hand it over to
Speculators I suspect are Chinese who are in the process of
taking over Africa. How much does he get paid for his noble
work? Mapp, LTH, O.A.P. almost 83 years old
Are we suppose to send our names in to the liquidators as well to get our money back
@smileywiley @real @mapp @mullitover... Dear investors, I will highlight a small aspect of the scam that you have been victim among many others. I suppose the most important asset for which you have invested is the mining right (license) for iron ore initially. The bandits who are members of the Board (Simon, Michael, Julian ...) have found a way to insert a third company in the endorsement of the addendum to license, OTN Mining. OTN, who already becomes co-owner with you of the asset of which they did not pay any pens . OTN without subscribing to the shares becomes the owner of a portion of your assets in Guinea. Even if there is liquidation, in case Guinea does not withdraw the license the lessee would pay proportionally to bellzone and OTN or will pay bellzone portion and will be came co-owner with OTN. This is a demonstration that everything was done on purpose to fool you. Yoda!
arulre, Thats an interesting point regarding third party. I do wonder whether Simon, Simon and team were looking at something here... Only for Hudson to pull the rug from beneath their feet...
I don’t know what percentage I own but had over £50k worth of these shares all down pan probly but if we club together and something could happen I’m here if you need forms signed Email : samweston88@hotmail.co.uk Also got few people I know invested in this shit
AIM PRO Traders making it easy for Speculators to pick up Shares
at give away price. Cut throat business practice .
AIM never again.
In oct 2018 BZM management planned to raise money from third party by new share issue and stopped by HUDSON. Now in liquidation process no one(Hudson) can stop third party buying BZM.
But I wonder any one lined up to buy?.
Is Oct story of third party showing interest on BZM is made up?
Happy new year!!!!
You have to assume there is corruption here on a massive scale even for AIM.....
The minister who spoke recently must have been aware of the situation Bellzone were in....yet chose to heavily name drop the company in his promotional business....
Hudson rather than the saviour they were promoted to be by the company for years were simply a vulture waiting for their moment to pounce,,,
I would imagine the chairman got wind of what was happening here and wanted no part of it.
All we got was a stooge who has not delivered one positive news item during his tenure.....what was all the BS about the board has listened to hudsons concerns and believes there interests are aligned with shareholders....
They will get a nice payout as part of the liquidation and move on to another sham...
Investors (Prevention of Fraud) (Jersey) Law 1967 Page - 6 Revised Edition – 31 August 2004 13.450 statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive, induces or attempts to induce another person – (a) (i) to lend to the person or to any other person money on terms involving payment of interest or repayment at a premium, or (ii) to enter into or offer to enter into any agreement for that purpose; (b) to enter into or offer to enter into – (i) any agreement for, or with a view to, acquiring, disposing of, subscribing or underwriting securities, or (ii) any agreement the purpose or pretended purpose of which is to secure a profit to any of the parties from the yield of securities or by reference to fluctuations in the value of securities; (c) to take part or offer to take part in any arrangements with respect to property other than securities, being arrangements the purpose or effect, or pretended purpose or effect, of which is to enable persons taking part in the arrangements (whether by becoming owners of the property or any part of the property or otherwise) to participate in or receive profits or income alleged to arise or to be likely to arise from the acquisition, holding, management or disposal of such property, or sums to be paid or alleged to be likely to be paid out of such profits or income; or (d) to enter into or offer to enter into an agreement the purpose or pretended purpose of which is to secure a profit to any of the parties by reference to fluctuations in the value of any property other than securities, shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both such fine and such imprisonment: Provided that the provisions of sub-paragraph (a) of this Article shall not apply to any inducement or attempted inducement made to any person whose ordinary business includes the business of banking, or who carries on a business of such other class or description as may be prescribed. 3 Citation This Law may be cited as the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)
@mullitover that was the reaction to my posts but he didn't really deny what I said except in the last paragraph he try to demonstrate that factually they do not lost the license but the delay was clear in the addendum end of November for BFS if not the license is lost. Any way he knows what was really going on. And informe rubbish through RNS and not ones that is an abuse. Yoda!
Here's an email I received from Simon on 7th December. My question was regarding the port discussions - His response - The simple answer to your question is that the potential for a port deal has only really come about in the last 12 months or so, not before. The bauxite sector in Guinea is booming. Bauxite is a bulk commodity very similar to iron ore (except for the obvious - it is is processed in two steps to aluminium, rather than steel). The existing port capacity in Guinea is choked and there are bauxite operators who need port capacity. If you have a search of the internet, you'll see how quickly Guinea's bauxite sector has grown in the last 2-3 years. The more complicated overlay is that Konta Port was used by the Forecariah JV which is in administration. I cannot even begin to explain the ins and outs of Guinean insolvency procedures in an email, but it is worth noting that the JV went bust 3 years ago and the port complications are as yet unresolved. So, we have been looking at a port deal for quite a long period but no deal came quickly enough to prevent us doing the two small fundraisings of the last year; and indeed, it is possible no deal will be forthcoming when we most need it, which is now. We will just have to wait and see what happens in the near future. wrt the FeNi FS - yes, there is a time frame but some bulleting board posters have got it completely wrong. The timetable was re-set and the clock actually started ticking at the time the Addendum to the Mining Convention was promulgated by the Presidential Decree. So, actually, this resets the whole timetable that is in the formal documentation. So we actually have most of 2019 to deliver on that. (When the Addendum was promulgated, we did state this point but it seems to have been lost on people.) Kind regards, Simon I feel this situation is more to do with increasing the export of Bauxite. The Chinese are investing alot in the sector (Simon mentions the sector growth) and the Chinese will have been aware and all over the possibility of getting their hands on the Konta port for the immediate purpose of scaling up exports. AIMO
One more thing to add: I'm a finance guy, not a lawyer. So if any of you are a lawyer and think we can have a case, I'm happy to support. We probably need to be around 15-20 shareholders to get to 10% of Bellzone to start the case. I'm also very disappointed and we can also blame AIM for such thing could happen. And Grant Thornton have good lawyers, so when they sign off the liquidation, we can only sue them (and/or some Directors/Board members). The below is only my thinking, happy if anybody have better information and can prove that I'm wrong.
I own 0.58% and will also support any action. However, I'm trying to put the puzzles together: the Company has 3 valuable assets: 1) 50% of the port; 2) the mining licence; 3) other machinery, equipment, etc.My concerns re port: the other 50% is owned by China International Fund, which is basically connected to China Gov. They don't want to sell their 50% to anybody, just to a strategic Chinese investor. The port is owned by a JV which is under liquidation. Some said that there are issues with the condition of the port and it still requires significant investment to make it fully operational. Also, I have doubts about some legal documents around the port. Why are these important? Who wants to invest to take only 50% of the port where conditions (operational and legal) are not fully clear? I believe Hudson (and CS) is working on this since the summer. They were trying to sell their 50% of the port, knowing they will never get good offers. I believe they already collected a few offers for this 50%, which are significantly lower than the book value - let's say max $10m. So a CS related company can offer the highest value, let's say $11m and they can take the 50% of the port. Re licence: this will probably be withdrawn by Guinea Gov but already agreed with China Gov (through a related company) that they either get some % of the new company or China promised to build new roads, railway, etc., so they will give the licence to a new company. Re machinery and equipment: low value (max. $2m). Same process as in case of the land: the highest bidder will be the new CS related company for those assets which they need. The rest is sold for peanuts.
The liquidation was started by Hudson through a supplier invoice. Assuming the company has around $7m supplier invoices (majority is from Hudson and CS) and $20m loan. So as long as all these assets are sold below $27m, they are fine and we get nothing (in the example above they will get $13m). Why are they fine? They will have all the assets, the port and the licence in a separate company, 100% owned by them - so this is a much bigger value than they lost on the shares / loan. And let's not forget that they saved money on paying the other shareholders (us) out. I'm pretty sure these are all well documented and they were very careful: as you remember, we could sell as many shares as we wanted until 3rd Dec and also, there were no insider trading - so all these are legal. They probably offered huge compensation for the Board for there loss on the shares. That's why they appointed a well known liquidation company (Grant Thornton). They only need to review the documentation, the offers and the legal opinions. And they will sign it off. Are these all sounds legal? Well, probably yes. Are these ethical? Definitely no. And to make it even worse, the second largest shareholder owns less than 2% of the company, so what the likelihood is to start any legal action, which would probably cost us over $100k???
I have 0.82% including my wife a/c. I’m happy to support if anyone defend us. I faced similar issue before in Xcite energy share. I tried pushing to through my local MP. But finally just received letter from Exchequer Philip Hammond advising to proceed through London stock exchange but nothing useful. Bentley licence easily transferred to debit owners and all previous employees working for them is newly named company Whalsay.
we small share holders are small fishes. I lost hope to win this monster
More like Hudson sails off into the sunset with all the assets
Hi BMB I hold 1.76m shares .. if that helps ..
For a company to go into liquidation then 75% of shareholders have to vote for it. However creditors can force the company into liquidation if it can provide evidence that the company can not pay it's debts of £750 or more. So as no vote has been taken I can only assume that Hudson has forced us into liquidation. Therefore sale of assets will happen.
The liquidator will take control of the company’s affairs and the directors no longer have control of the company or anything it owns. Directors can’t act for or on behalf of the company.
So in other words we sell out pay off Hudson and hopefully the shareholders get the leftover scraps.