Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. 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.
Good morning,
For those that want a DIRECT source of information as to whats happened with their investment in FRC (Caymen) currently being wound up. I have confirmation that the appointed liquidators are:
Mr. Grant Hiley and Mr. Michael Green of Deloitte & Touche LLC, PO Box 1787, Camana Bay, 60 Nexus Way, Grand Caymen, KY1-1109. Caymen Islands.
They can be contacted via the following link: https://www.deloitte.com/cbc/en/contact/contact-us.html?icid=bn_contact-us
Deloitte are a reputable and well respected company, who are now officially in charge of FRC (Caymen), the version of the company that was listed and traded on AIM. The last known place where our hard earned money was invested.
They should now have access to all the company information. If you have genuine questions or concerns as to how your interests were managed or put at risk by the way the company run its affairs, the conduct of the directors (working against our interests), the reason why the company was suddenly and workout notice delisted or what's actually happened to the assets and our beneficial interests in them (without consultation or information with members etc.). Deloitte are duty bound to investigate and report any wrongdoing.
Hopefully, as some would have us believe, this is now an empty shell and everything is rosy in the garden. However, this is second or even third hand whispers. Nothing official. I think people should follow their own instinct.
In light of no official comms. There is a collapsing timeframe to identify yourself and raise any concerns. As respected posters have retorted; genuine shareholders don't sit on your hands do something about it!
Tenners - I note you are pushing others to take action and report “directors working against our interests” without admitting that you yourself have already done the same? The fact you say “they should have” perhaps indicates you have not.
If you are going to make, or are expecting others to make on your behalf, very serious allegations of wrong-doing to Deloitte then you will need to have hard, factual evidence to support your claim. “The company didn’t talk to me” just won’t cut it. I would suggest you / anyone prepared to make such claims cross-check the obligations of a Private CEC before proceeding. The matter has been discussed here many times and such information is easy to find via Google. Be aware of the danger in making potentially libelous statements via a professional body.
As you rightly state, Deloitte are a well-regarded company. and yes, it is very common for shareholders to contact liquidators in certain situations. However specific to making allegations as opposed to general enquires, I would suggest you / anyone first seek guidance on how to proceed.
Just be careful not to expose yourself to unintended consequences because you allowed your anger and frustration to get the better of you.
As others have said, the last thing a liquidator, in this type of liquidation, is concerned about is a shareholder. They are focused on the interests of the creditors. And don’t pay them any money before seeking legal advice. Professional or not they are first and foremost a “for-a-fee” operation that in this instance reports to the courts.
Looed, rather than fear mongering, allow others, including myself to make up our own minds! Their is nothing wrong with contacting those now in charge of the company we invested in, and yes asking some difficult questions. I have personally already done so.
Respectfully, your call to do nothing, does not strike a cord with me. Thank you.
I believe my post clearly says if you are going to do something then do it carefully and wisely.
Call it blind faith, but I am standing firmly behind SN and Looed. I think there have been significant events over the past 5-yrs that could have allowed SN to walk away from FRR resulting in the shareholders being left in the dumpster. Instead (although not ideal) we have been getting some reassuring messages, particularly recently, post FRC wind up. Yes, this passive approach may be a life long regret but ‘running off’ to Deloitte is hardly going to achieve any thing positive. The easiest (and probably the heart warm) action would be to get a message from the company on next milestones and/or timings of when we can expect our replacement shares in the new FRR setup.
You are not one to count chickens......
Monti, I am not blind, I have seen the light for a long time now, others seem to still see darkness, thats their call, I just hope they don’t turn this into the fiasco that was the online court case, the people who thought their comments would sway a court of law, I am not the cleverest person to walk this planet but I know that was a silly move. So like you said, I am standing as I have done for a long time, 100% behind our leader SN , he could have rolled us over a long time ago , and Looed’s & jim’s updates are enough for me to not think otherwise.
Tenners, your comment on fear mongering , you speak for yourself, not me sorry, I read no such thing and I also never read Looed telling you not to do what want either.
GLA real holders
Why are you threatening shareholders? Who are you?
Abkaz, who is threatening…? And who are you..? Are you a real holder like me..?? Have you proven yourself to be a real holder to FSHG group..?
Obviously I wasn’t addressing you. Your tedious spamming somehow adds even less to the board now than under your previous RainbowRider account.
Who are you abkaz..? Who where you aiming your comment at..? I know I am not rainbow, proven myself to be a real holder a long time ago.
Easy thing for you and anyone else where I am concerned is use your filter option, it really is that easy.
To be honest, I can't see them arsing about trying to give you a constructive timeline of events, information and mishaps that lead to current events on their free time.
It's got to the point now, where it's in for a penny in for a pound for most people, including myself - although I suspect it will be more likely in for a pound in for a penny!
Goit, agree with your post but more importantly, people should realize that it will take months and reliance on FRC staff for the liquidator to collate information and establish a creditor list and amounts owed before they can even come to any conclusions, especially on what went wrong and who (if any one) is to blame. There is also a cost element and if there is no money/assets in the kitty, it will be a quick and simple closure; the best the liquidators can do right now is tell you where they are in terms of liquidation process (if you are lucky). Furthermore, liquidators first priority is always toon creditors (situations like this, shareholders are treated like 2nd class citizens).Hence why I feel following up with them will bear little fruit. Instead, we should focus on SN via Looed/Jim for a litte clarity. Remember, last two messages from the company specifically mentioned ‘shareholders’ but I want to play ‘devils advocate’, then relying on these guys words (historically) has been less than reliable. .
Anyway, we deserve an update from our team in terms of where we are and where we are heading even if this is through the current informal channel.
Good post Monti. You're correct about the practicalities of what will happen with the liquidation process.
One question that Looed was asked, which I don't think he/she replied to (sorry if I missed it), is whether the last brief message was in response to cajoling from Looed or not. If the latter, then it would signal that someone at the Company reads this board.
Either way, what we really require from the Company is a clear statement explaining how we still have a partial ownership of the asset.
ODR1 - I replied to Monti a few days ago but I think it was easy to miss in the back and forth of the past few days. The timing of the message was decided in advance to coincide with the publication date of the Gazette. However I only got the message the same day I posted it. Messaging is a continuous process and some replies are relatively quick and some require various degrees of back and forth, but the outreach is ongoing.
Thank you for the clarification Looed; apologies I missed it originally.
No problem ODR1
Tenners
Understand your frustration with current situation , I think we all share that frustration.
I will not be contacting Liquidator as I feel there is nothing to be gained by doing so .
Clearly their role is to investigate , as far as funds allow , in order to liquidate any assets in order to fund themselves and pay creditors .
I assume they would not give me any info other than referring me to the process currently underway .
If I was to contact them I would be going to them blind with absolutely no information to pass on in order to assist them .
Having said that what would I want to assist them with…. .creating more problems / uncertainty / extended timelines for fellow shareholders whilst this plays out .
You indicate one of your frustrations is understanding
….the reason why the company was suddenly and workout ( without ) notice delisted….
Notice was given , It was in Caymans Gazette dated Dec 18th stating the WUP hearing was to be held Jan 16th . That notice also informed shareholders of their legal rights within the legal process, which included the line
Any creditor or shareholder of the Company may be heard on the question of whether or not a winding up order should be made .
We had the opportunity for input at the hearing ( presume they would have accepted in writing ) .Not sure though what could have been said to affect the judges decision .
It appears the Co did not contest the petition , nor it seems did they attempt to have it overturned within the five day timeline after it was granted , as was their right .
We do not know why they seemingly allowed it to proceed unchallenged .
Was it in part to dispose of us some might wonder .
Comms from them since seem NOT to indicate that , we can only wait and hope for that to be confirmed .
To that end , at this time in the winding up I see nothing to be gained by getting involved in the process , but potentially much to lose if we do .
I very rarely post on here as I do not have anything of substance to contribute. However, I am a substantial shareholder with 11,674,264 shares held between myself and my wife. I logged these with FSHG many months ago by sending a screenshot of my holdings (with ii).
I have a concern about some of the messages posted recently where they might impact negatively on myself and my wife. Of particular concern recently is a message from Tenners " the conduct of the directors (working against our interests" and do hope that anyone contacting the liquidators regarding ANY aspects regarding the liquidation use the term "my" and "me" as I certainly do not wish to be identified as part of an "our". Having said that, I believe, as many others have expressed clearly, that any individual shareholder has the right to contact the liquidators. Just please do NOT jeopardise my holdings or potential returns.
Like I said earlier, investors will have to make their own decisions, and I completely respect that. We can be reasonably confident that SN has moved the asset into his new venture FRUS, but there are then two schools of thought. Firstly, those who claim to be in the know. They believe (or hope) SN has moved the assets and protected our interests by moving the share register across too (based on the purported unofficial commentary from the company).
Second, those like myself, that have seen no evidence that SN has secured the interests of shareholders from FRC (Caymen), which is currently going through liquidation. I have no reason to hold such blind faith, or any reason to trust SN. He could easily just have himself and the interests of a few selected others that have registered shares in the new FRUS. Whilst original shareholders interests get wound up by Deloitte.
If the company is happy to send messages out to a select few, why not just let us all know? So with respect, I dont trust these whispers or the encouragement to not reach out to Deloitte who are now in charge of the actual company where our investment was made. We having nothing to lose. Any window of registering our views and finding out what has happened to our investment (however small) is now closing. In light, of the radio silence, I feel its worth every genuine shareholder in the original FRC reaching out to Deloitte, but people will have to make their own mind up.
All the best.
That's a big no from me Tenners. I will stick with Looed.
The only thing that makes sense given that it would be subject to clawback if the "asset" (ie, the license/PSA) was moved out of the structure within 12 months ahead of the winding up is that there is currently no asset, the license being expired, etc.. Thus SN was content to let the former parent company go into liquidation without objection or dispute. Whatever other minimal assets remain (desks, computers, etc.) can now be fought over by the creditors such as Mourant and YA.
Meanwhile, the MOU is with FRUS (if I'm not mistaken). That is likely he same Texas LLC that was mentioned in the arbitrator's decision (which also mentioned it was a wholly owned subsidiary of FRC) that the company had previously attempted to transfer the license to. We have verified that it is still in existence and in good standing in Texas. That company had no assets pending the award of the license once the conditions were met, which included paying off the Georgian govt the amount of the arbitration award. That company had to have been moved out of the FRC structure to other owners (SN and associates).
There will then follow a chain of events assuming the liquidators don't challenge the above: SN/investors through FRUS fund the payments to Georgian government, new license with a reasonable exploitation period is awarded to FRUS, company is recapitalized with new investment and former shareholders excluding ZM are given a certain percentage in the new company, divided prorata to their previous holdings. As an example--new money gets 80% of the new equity, old investors 20%, divided according to their former holdings. This would presuppose that the company got the last known share register from the registrar and were able to determine who owned what. That could be a messy process given nominee holdings, etc.
This doesn't excuse the company from not making any statement properly qualified over the last 5 years to shareholders, but is an explanation for what may be going on behind the scenes. I think what Looed called "strategic ambiguity" and Ricardo called liability avoidance are the primary reasons for the silence, but those could have been mitigated or accomplished while still providing broader communications.
I understand where you are coming from Tenners , this board is abit of fresh air compared to most and still alive even after all this time thanks to the obvious but also everybody that reads this chat. I still cant believe how much work has been undertaken by Looed etc. I feel l am part of a good group of strong people (99%). For me what ever will happen, happens and l cant stop it. I want to know as everybody else does but will it make a difference!! I am peed off but in a calm way , just waiting as been waiting for years. Bless you though
Nice to read a wide variety of interesting views today.
My take on contacting liquidators is that unless you are a) willing to spend tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands on subsequent potential legal action, or b) willing to organise some sort of class action to do the same but spread the financial load, then I don't see the point.
Njames, I think your summing up is close to my way of thinking and fear. I have just read back over the arbitration decision. It was made clear that FRUS is a subsidiary of FRC. FRC was the parent and 100% owner.
If SN has moved FRUS from under that structure, at what price, was it for fair value and to whom. Lets remeber that FRC raised $500m from investors, and they confirmed a commercial discovery we believe is worth Billions (3.5b claimed at arbitration).
It could easily be another land grab from SN and any new associates, who want to sail off into the sunset. Can we put our faith in someone who dodges creditors, and treats shareholders with such contempt. There is no guarantee he has taken us original investors with him. That would leave FRC (and the original shareholders) left in the old shell and dissolved.
This is why I think it's important to ask those now in charge of FRC, Deloitte. I know others disagree.
However, what has happened to our investment, and the ownership of FRUS. Asking what SN has done with our investment and ownership of FRUS is a legitimate question. Deloitte will have the answers in light of his radio silence.