Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
After all debts and dues settled it could be a cash shell with no cash :-)
this is just a lifestyle company for rolfs 250k a year salary. would be better as a main market cash shell with rolf gone
Also voted my 1%+ in favour.
+ Rolf is delivering less and taking more, which in turn has (imo) made him less motivated to drive shareholder return. Looks like it's taken this turn of events to actually make him give a sh*t.
= Potential new directors lack experience, but saying the right things hope they are not just producing a vote winning 'manifesto'.
- Rocco seems to be happy with recent developments, not sure if this is just personal v Rolf or he if he thinks it gets him 'off the hook' at MNRG's expense?
Leap of faith indeed, but what's to lose, right?
1.
3.
4.
Are certainly a priority
Until the financial situation is investigated it is hard to state 2. But nothing is off the table.
The proposed new board will be looking to protect shareholders interests.
How many companies state that and actually mean it?
Have the current board done so?
Voters decide.
Ditto for me and my 2.5% holding.
Very easy to vote for anyone holding on HL - just click on View Shareholder Meetings from your account and you can vote electronically in seconds.
Not a pleasant thing to vote out a board with very little on which to judge the challengers. My main objection has been to the level of reward Rolf has taken in relation to the performance of the company. Not acceptable.
Things I will be looking for from any new BoD to rebuild some faith and maintain their personal reputations:
1. A rapid resolution of legal disputes with Rocco et al. If this means waiving the payments awarded by the courts, we will have a pretty clear view of the integrity of the new board
2. A restoration of an agreement with BritEnergy on similar terms to the aborted original deal. With egos out the way this should be doable
3. Dramatically improved comms for a new BoD
4. Modest salaries for any execs until we have a clear future for the company - anything like the salary Rolf took will again be a clear indication of the integrity of the new BoD. Reward based on performance and return to shareholders.
Whatever the result - good luck and happy 2023 to all!
Very well put.
I have today contacted my broker via online chat and voted for all the resolutions.
My reasoning is simple, if the current board stay in place I see this company going bust this year. The legals against Rocco are endless with the current CEO and their battle of personal egos. I also find the recent company announcements frankly ridiculous, they have shown this week with than RNS it is obvious they do not care about us as shareholders or any questions shareholders demand answers to. Well sorry Rolf it may be news to you but we own the company.
Voting the new board in takes a leap of faith but the way I see it is they have a much better chance of drawing a line in the sand and ending the current paralysis. I am also pleased that it has turned out to be the same Adrian of Infrastrata fame so the ability to turn around a failing business is proven. So I either pretty much guarantee losing my investment with the current board who appear out of ideas or vote for fresh eyes and ideas. I'll take the latter and give Adrian a chance to turn this around.
Good luck all however you choose to vote, that's my 2p.
I have released a proposed directors and priorities statement but it's too long to post here and I don't believe I'm allowed to send links without being banned.
Telegram users can find the group MNRG 2.0 or my twitter Block4gooner67
Perhaps do a Zak Mir interview where transparency and the answers to questions can be viewed and debated on here (and other bb) Perhaps some confidence will return to buying shares again.
The plan is to improve the non existent communications for sure.
I believe in being open and honest as do my fellow requisitioners.
It's going to take time if we can oust the current CEO and Chairman but a thorough investigation of assets,debts and prospects will be evaluated as soon as possible.
No empty promises
Pretty powerful stuff and extremely well written. It’s going to be a bumpy ride if Spencer manages to get the changes he so desires but hopefully as PIs we’ll start to see some improvement and benefit from the changes. However, will the comms improve or are the circumstances that are hidden from our view going to force silence onto the new team. Change in this case I believe is good but also a time for complete honesty about the exact status of the company and its viability.
Part 2
The above potentially represents a major irregularity in respect to the Companies Act 2006, notable section 314 in relation the GM, in that the total number of voting shares, and those not in public hands, have not been properly declared in the companies website or in the circular.
Secondly, we draw your attention to a further improper irregularity in respect to the position of Christian Schaffalitzky, whereby he has publicly indicated his intention to resign should the resolutions proposed by the requisitioners be voted for by shareholders. This can only be treated as a undue threat to both undermine valid proposed resolutions at the GM and dissuade shareholders a free vote on the future composition of the MetalNRG board of directors. Mr Schaffalitzky is fully aware of the impact of this statement and the potential for a suspension from the stock from trading on the London Stock Exchange (LSE), being in conflict with his statutory fiduciary duties (CA 2006, Sections 171-174) in numerous respects; notably in disregard to the company articles; his duty to promote the success of the company; and finally to exercise independent judgement in discharge of his non-executive role in MNRG.
We would also like to note that Mr Schaffalitzky is currently, or has been, involved with a number of other companies on the LSE. Such companies are at present either suspended or threatened to be suspended by the LSE. At least two of these companies have had dealings (direct or indirect) with MetalNRG or its directors. In such circumstances we question Mr Schaffalitzky’s judgment and the potential conflicts that there may be behind his recent statement as well as behind the (failed) transactions that he indirectly agree to bring to MetalNRG and/or its partners.
We would respectfully request that Mr Schaffalitzky reflects on his public position in light of the consequences that could play out for MNRG shareholders. We question also the legality of such a threat in respect to CA 2006, s172, and we invite Mr Schaffalitzky to confirm he is committed to remain on the board in order to allow appropriate disclosure, due diligence and controlled hand-over in all such matters.
The above confirms our opinion that the board of MetalNRG, especially since the AGM, seek to continue the frustration of shareholders for their own interests and we can only look forward to positive change at MNRG with the outcome of a general meeting that is fair and legally valid.
Your sincerely,
Edward Spencer
On behalf of the Requisitioning Shareholders
Part two.
Dear Mr Gerritsen,
I write to you in relation to the upcoming General Meeting (GM) called for the 11th of January 2023, and the information provided by MetalNRG Plc (the “Company” or “MNRG”) in the circular issued on 19th of December 2022 and amended on 23rd of December 2022.
At the outset, I wish to point out that the nature of the information contained in the MetalNRG circular is dedicated to improperly discredit or dismiss the requisition, this matter has been passed to our legal advisers and we will revert in detail on all the points. More importantly, the Circular has in no way addressed the dramatically precarious position of the company and as such the prospects for a going concern following an unsuccessful vote for change. Furthermore, there is also no mention of the true debt position of the company, no details on other liabilities, no new positive information in respect to current projects, no details of other projects that may be subject of a future prospectus, and nothing in respect to the failed resolutions in the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and nothing to indicate that the board has a substantive plan for the future.
Moreover, it has come to our attention that some of the information in the circular does not comply with relevant sections of the Companies Act 2006 and it is our request that certain information is urgently clarified such that a fair and legally valid vote may occur at the upcoming GM.
The first question arises in respect to the total number of shares in issue versus the total number of shares in public hands, as depicted in the company website today, where we note a differential of approximately 100 million shares, which we can only presume does not include the shares held by directors, which we understand from the circular amount to a total of approximately 82 million shares (not circa 98 million per the company website today - as of 07/10/22).
This discrepancy appears to have arisen with the settlement of the loan note due to Global Investment Solutions Limited (GIS) as announced via the RNS on 7th October 2022, whereby the outstanding sums due to GIS were, at least to a degree, settled via a security in favour of GIS provided by EQTEC Plc (EQT).
The above RNS describes a transaction to offset the security due by EQT to GIS with the issue of a new (convertible) loan note from MNRG in favour of EQT.
The net result of the transaction appears to have been the transfer of shares from EQT to a third-party (or GIS) in exchange for the new loan note, with a face value of £100,000 and with certain rights to convert to MNRG shares at a later date.
The shares that have been transferred from EQTEC to a third-party, and potentially noted as not in public hands on the company website, amount to approximately 100 million shares and are without any statutory TR1 notice or other public notice to accompany the transfer other than the TR1 from EQT confirming a reduction in holding
Soon be shovel ready. Excuses already, oh dear.
Merry Christmas to all and hope the new year brings us one step further to a better company.x
Please be advised that on reflection a statement before Christmas from the requisitioners is going to be difficult to achieve.
I feel that it will be better served by being available hopefully the end of next week
As you hopefully appreciate this time of year is busy for all including us
We need to have any statement reviewed by the lawyers too to ensure its appropriateness also
I have nothing to say about the news except. How come they now seem to care about investors. I wonder why?.x
Sadly I have to agree with all your statements
I can’t believe how much of a shambles this company has now become.
Back in 2019 they were talking about starting mining operations at Gold Ridge and monetising the asset. It’s now probably further away from production than it was 3-years ago and requires significant further work any ultimately cost. The Kyrgyz assets is currently worthless. The plant in Italy with Eqtec will bring in very little in terms of revenue to MNRG. The only thing that the company had going for it was the deal with BritNRG, which would be worth a decent sum right now, but we all know how that turned out due to Rolf’s relationship with Rocco deteriorating.
Now, the BoD are buying up shares, to increase voting rights, just in the hope of keeping their jobs. It just shows how much of a Mickey Mouse company this has become!
As you have stated assuming the current BOD are removed there is going to be a period of investigation for any incoming directors. It hs impossible to say what is going to happen so no empty promises will be given.
I have always been honest and open in life and will continue to do so.
I have the interests of all shareholders at heart and if the current BOD had kept to their "corporate Governance" statement on their website we would not be in this situation.
A statement is currently being reviewed by all parties and should be out within the next 36 hrs
Hope thst helps
A bit like incoming politicians! They can tell us of their intentions but the realities may change how they are able to act but we should be able to compare to the current BoD proposals.
The way I see this is a frightened member of the board that has spent less than 10k to hold on to his job. And why do people keep asking for an explanation of what the new members of the board if they get voted in. The cannot in my opinion give any explanation. They have no idea what to expect the state of what the company is in. Shareholders know it is bad, but how bad is it really. So any explanation would just be an empty promise. But that is my opinion.x
Ed - can you please confirm how and when you will be explaining your thoughts. As a holder of 35m shares I am open minded and interested to hear what you have to say. Thank you.