Member Info for addicknt

Si90, I saw someone else on another board make the same comment. He was challenged to explain his hypothesis and it became very apparent that he hadn't a clue as to what shorting actually is. I suspect you may find the same problem with Mr Dog.

Si90, I suppose the answer to your question is another question; why would you invest here when you can invest directly into the investee companies? And as for the directors "putting there(sic) money where there(sic) mouth is", they're actually putting YOUR money where their mouth is. I believe and hope this does come good,particularly as there are some good long term holders who post on here,but I took the decision many moons ago to sell up and invest direct...and thus far, I haven't regretted it.

It's also worth referring to Secker's most recent comment on the issue; "we're in the final phase of discussions on financing"...or something pretty close to that.

I emailed the company this morning and this is the reply I received from the Company Secretary: "I confirmed with the Share Registrars that HL finally completed their LoTs and sent them to link last week. HL's failure to complete the forms prior to the Effective Date, unlike most of our other Nominee shareholders who did the simple registration in plenty of time, has meant that they are now part of the weekly batch process. Last week's batch for both Canadian and DI holders was collated and submitted by Link to ComputerShare for processing on Monday. They have a 3 day SLA, so the process should be completed tomorrow and the new shares with HL thereafter. The delay is purely down to HL's failure to submit their LoTs on time. The Registrar has executed their side of it entirely in compliance with the Plan of Arrangement and all documentation distributed to shareholders" So, there you have it; definitive proof that HL are responsible, despite their initial attempt to blame Link. If I could be arsed I'd switch SIPP provider.

A warning notice has just appeared alongside the ticker stating that the price shown is NOT the market price and to contact HL if I want a live price. This is interesting as it 's showing 87p, which I believe IS the correct market price. This is just one gigantic balls-up. I find impossible to understand how they have not been able to sort this out.

Is the price being shown the correct market price? Or is it still 84.50?

They appear to be showing and are giving the correct market price. I haven't had any communication from them.

HL have got it sorted out. Only nearly 5 weeks after the event.

Afraid I've no idea.

Barksy, where did you see this? I wasn't aware he had "significant control" in the first place.

I can't see any large trades.

p.s I love the irony that this site was closed over-night for maintenance and now it's not able to display prices etc. What is it with tech guys?

rectifies the rather strange situation of PS not being on the main board. Separately, I can see no justification for awarding options to a non-exec. I've served on many boards and have always been opposed to this practice; but I do recognise others may disagree.

Indeed...at the prevailing market price. It's going to be very interesting to see how the Morgan Stanley predictions work out. On the face of it it appears they have have massively underestimated the transformation of the energy market and overestimated the impact of the SQM position. I recall that at the time of the release of the FS certain people criticised the highly conservative price used for the product. For me this conservative approach was entirely sensible and it will be making discussions with funders so much easier, in as much as they won't have to be defending their assumptions and the audience will be able to see the upside. BCN has two and half months to produce a funding package and I can rarely recall an occasion when so much is riding on it. I would describe my mood as nervously excited.

HL don't lend shares out.

So, no one is interested in buying at under 25p and yet the price will rise! I guess they are all hoping to pay more? I suspect you meant 'selling'...or maybe you didn't?

obs/bannor, they key test is "are the company and it's directors registered with the FCA? " As I understand it, they are not. Specifically, the directors are not registered fund managers and as such cannot offer investment advice.

By the way, I've commenced a process of registering a formal complaint with these incompetents and suggest you do the same.

We are getting close to four weeks since the new shares listed and yet HL have still failed to sort the mess out. In this day and age, the situation is appalling. How the fruck are they due to receive the shares? Have they employed a blind pigeon with only one wing? It really says a great deal about the quality of some of the people HL employs. Truly shocking for a FTSE 100 business. Those of us affected must keep up the pressure on them and let them know exactly how we feel.

obs, do you happen to know what the dividend arrangements are for the jvs? Say for example, they come into production as separate legal entities, with BCN owning the majority and they become highly cash generative. Does the agreement only allow for the dividends to flow up to the holding company, or would they come out pro-rata from the operating company? In other words, is it legally possible that BCN can, by virtue of their majority, control where the divi gets paid? This is not as stupid a question as it may appear. I have seen many examples of similar arrangements.