Member Info for addicknt

Interesting exchanges happening on telegram. Sean was talking to Chris and raised a number of shareholder questions. First, a short list of candidates for the chairman's position has been compiled and those candidates are doing dd on the company. The intention is to appoint a heavy hitter.

The company were surprised at the election result, but point out that both candidates are pro-mining. The anti-mining stuff is just noise.

Eloro, yes, I do. I also recall you saying Cascabel would be seized by the cartels.

Bozi, there's an interesting contradiction in her stance, as was apparent in the article BP posted.

She opposed a referendum to close down oil production, but is now seemingly taking a more aggressive stance against extractive industries. I wonder to what extent this is simply electioneering in an attempt to woo voters who wouldn't necessarily support her? Regardless of this, I sincerely hope she doesn't win. We need stability and continuity.

If Darren is still around it would be useful if he could give us some guidance about local sentiment.

To my mind there's no question a Noboa victory would be far better for us, but as we know, electorates around the world are more than capable of great acts of self-harm.

BDN, I'm merely stating what the rules are designed to prevent. We can't predict whether or not someone will break those rules and risk prosecution and there's no point building a conspiracy theory based upon such supposition.

DBW, it isn't going to happen. The rules prevent directors dealing during a takeover.

Fort, I'm afraid my memory of the Takeover code is a bit rusty and out of date, but I'm pretty sure it prevents things like that from happening. Of course, if they tried to do it before a bid it would be straightforward insider trading.

IP, you've answered your own question. He has 150m reasons to get the best price. What kind of feckwit would negotiate a lower value whilst owning so many shares?

This is yet another of your totally ridiculous conspiracy theories.

NMM, good question, but I assume the government is waiting for us to deliver on some of the milestones. I'm also uncertain as to how much expenditure is already covered by the existing IPA and EA. Is it enough to provide a level of comfort sufficient to push the CIPA down the agenda?

If the purpose of the London visit was to interview candidates for the position of chairman, one assumes they had already whittled the list down to a few frontrunners. If this is the case, why has it taken 10 days to make their decision?

The annual report and accounts makes it clear they see the appointment as being important, but the level of inaction suggests anything but.

The need for a new chairman arose in December 2023 and I can understand why they made no effort in the first half of 2024 - they didn't feel they could attract a decent candidate when the financials were so parlous. But 7 months have now passed since the company was put on a sound footing, so that's no longer a valid excuse.

In terms of credibility this delay is costing us and they really do need to provide an answer asap.

If the worse came to the worse, at least we have the enhanced protection of the EA, for which arbitration would take place in London.

Bloody democracies! At least you know where you stand under a dictator.

Voting is compulsory in Ecuador for those over 18 and under 65, so in theory there shouldn't be too many who didn't vote. Mind you, your point is valid.

What's your feeling about Gonzalez? Is she a threat to mining?

Pbow, we'll have to wait until April to find out.

It's been declared a 'technical tie' and will go to the run-off in April.

Not the ideal outcome, but hopefully those who voted for other candidates will swing towards Nobby.

Unless you've signed an agreement which makes you an insider, you quite clearly are not one, but at no stage have I said you are.

It's going to be interesting to see what emerges over the next few weeks.

RT, does it not occur to you that people might be somewhat suspicious? For example, if a bid actually does appear in a couple of weeks, don't you think that may raise a few eyebrows?

IP, none.

Eloro, yes and no.

As I pointed out yesterday, there have been two strands to his argument; the first relating to the collation of shareholder information, and the second giving all the impression of running a smear campaign against Caldwell - although I note he's gone quiet on that one.

If his suggestion of a low-ball offer is accurate, it's no bad thing that there's an easily identifiable group of shareholders who can be corralled to oppose the proposal, although whether it would make any difference is moot.

The concern for me is how this information came to his attention, because it doesn't seem as if it was simply a light bulb moment - it's too specific for that. So who has been drip feeding him this info and why did it emerge after Thursday's gathering? I'm sure many of you will have your own suspicions.

If I were the person responsible for disseminating this information to RT and we do indeed receive an offer in the next couple of weeks, I think I'd be reaching for a copy of the Insider laws. In fact RT may do well to consult the laws as well.

I should add that if this does come to pass, and I felt the offer was trying to rip us off, I'd join his campaign to oppose it.

So, his recent statements can be seen as doing us a service or, the opposite, in as much it's disruptive to SC in his attempts to run and de-risk the company. Take your pick.

Whatever it is it's providing an interesting interlude in the daily grind of owning this share.

Have LSE dropped the separate headings for different threads? It was much easier to follow a discussion under the previous structure. Or is it just my computer doing something weird?

Percentages needed: 50% +1 share will give control and can be declared 'unconditional'. If 90% is reached a 'mop-up' procedure kicks in whereby the remaining 10% are required to sell. However, there are differences depending upon the type of offer made.

The above percentages apply if the offer is a standard public tender offer and I believe the compulsory purchase procedures contained in the 2006 Companies Act may be enforced once 51% is achieved.

If the offer is structured as a Scheme of Arrangement 75% of shareholder support is required. (If RT's suggestion has any legs, it's most unlikely the bidder would go for a Scheme of Arrangement)

Assuming the 50% +1 is reached and there is no attempt to employ the Companies Act process, shareholders can chose to remain shareholders, although they will have no control whatsoever over the company. For example, the bidder may elect to take the company private and shareholders will be left owning illiquid shares with the possibility of no exit.

In my opinion, a reasonable offer for solg will achieve 50% +1 with ease. Of course, the difficulty arises around the definition of 'reasonable'.