We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
So what are your motives, aims and objectives, Monkey?
the mans a q un t. thats all there is to it. spotted from his first ever cpl of posts
Monkeyfluff is just so scared to death that we might actually walk away with something. He's so pathetic, how can he actually criticise anyone for talking crap on here when that's all he does, he isnt even invested lol. I pity the fool....
So what are your motives, aims and objectives, Monkey?
One minute you're saying we'll get nothing, someone will get this for pennies, but then when we act at least in part on the presumption of nothing, you're critical of the action, saying that's what they want for a cheap sale.
You get to gloat at our losses either way, so why does it matter so much to you? You seem to take our actions very personally for someone not invested in or associated with Rambler, so aside from points of moot conversation, what's your motive, aims and objectives here?
Do you think the SNP has been running RMM ?
One of the reasons we're voting against the CVL - we're not going to allow the BoD to quietly close Rambler down, and let what's happened disappear.
That's the odd thing with all of this, where's the money? Huge investment, huge fund raising, massive unsecured debts, sold copper, gold and silver, no-one paid for pretty much all of last year.
"Show Me The Money!"
I put a lot of money into this. Is that it? It's gone? It must be somewhere so who has it?
Via Discord, go to the RMM section and ask.
https://discord.gg/n7VXjMxE
>I wonder if the leader of Rig will be offered a back hander to try n sway a yes vote....just a musing....
Is there possibly a way you can go away and muse somewhere else? Why does it have to be here?
Monkey, you claim to know a lot for someone who contributes so little. Do you ever say anything positive anywhere, or do you just snipe online when your wrists aren't too tired?
The BOD had no issues burning through millions of dollars, and now they are concerned about a few thousand, really??
If you belive that then you really have not learnt anything about this BOD over the last 6 months.
Not to be trusted, there is for their own objective, VOTE NO against both options.
Well done, you got the company to explain company law and that you have no choice .
Utterly pointless.
The membership of RIG represents over 20% of RMM.
In which case, it doesn't matter which way you vote, but this is RMM UK, not RMMC.
At this point shareholders are irrelevant, the creditors call all the shots.
I'd assumed the RNS was related to the coordinated group of investors within RIG.
I've no idea what % of the company is held by those in that group, or the chances of it influencing the outcomes here, but fair play for being proactive. It's important to at least have a voice.
In any event, hope you all get the desired outcome.
I can also understand some of the logic regarding voting no from the replies.
Atb
Exactly ...rambler BOD get ready for legal action unless you find buyers and get decent some from sale process which will give shareholders most of their investment back .TB ..get ready for the result what you did to this potential company .
Today’s RNS is a direct result of the work by the Rambler Investor Group, which now has hundreds of share holders, who will hold the BoD to account for the dismissive and contemptuous way they have treated shareholders. Unless there is a buyer and private investors are reimbursed from the proceeds, this will not have a happy ending for TB and his cronies.
Got to laugh that in the RNSs (this and the previous one), they are still mentioning the company as listed on AIM. Speaks to how on top of things they are.
The BoD are free to organise an investor call, with independent legal advice, if they are that concerned. We have been asking for an investor call for six months.
Compulsory liquidation will involve a greater degree of court oversight, and potentially review of the actions of the BoD. Many of us do not trust to BoD, and do not trust them to suddenly start acting in our interests or with transparency or accountability. In fact today's RNS is a direct result of RIG action, and is the only public announcement of what is happening.
The point they are forgetting is that by the time a compulsory liquidation takes place the SISP process should either be concluded or far enough along to know if any value will be derived. If it can be determined that the SISP will give value then RMM UK won’t be insolvent so liquidation won’t be necessary. If the SISP doesn’t give value, who cares that compulsory liquidation costs more, we’ll having nothing anyway. This RNS is purely designed to scare shareholders into submission imho
Personally I'm struggling to understand why everyone is looking to vote No.
I can understand the frustration existing holdings in the share that are locked in have, however, the choice isn't liquidation or no liquidation.
It's approval to a voluntarily liquidation Vs a more costly non voluntary forced compulsory liquidation. Either way it has to liquidate.
As per the RNS in the event any value can be attributed back to shareholders after the process they will be even in a voluntary liquidation.
The chances of a return to shareholders is slim, and I can understand the impulse to not want the company to liquidate, but voting no to the resolutions seems to be counter productive to the outcomes shareholders want i.e. the best chance of some return of their capital.
Be interested to hear the case as to voting no. Have you sought legal advice within the RIG cohort on this matter?
Atb
Re-posted again due to the importance.
Hi all,
Please ensure you have contacted your broker to ensure you are being given the opportunity to vote, as many brokers will NOT contact you unless your account has been flagged to receive voting notifications.
Your vote can be easily accepted over the phone with your broker.
The 2 Options are noted below, but you also have the option to vote against all, which I have voted NO to both options.
Don't sit back and wait, contact your broker now, takes a couple of minutes.
Rambler Metals and Mining Plc has announced a General Meeting (GM) to be held on 3 May 2023. As a shareholder in the company, you now have the opportunity to vote on the proposed resolutions.
The resolutions to vote on can be found below:
1. That the company be wound up voluntarily
2. For the appointment of Paul Cooper and Adam Shama of Begbies Traynor (London) LLP as Joint Liquidators of the Company, and any act required or authorised under any enactment to be done by the joint liquidators may be done by all or any one or more of the persons holding the office of liquidators from time to time.