Member Info for BIGBangs

Surely the whole purpose of a chat board such as this is to discuss the position from the point of view of shareholders and prospective investors - if some call that moaning then surely they are missing the point?

The difference between the nil premium RRS deal and this offer is that RRS were not at a massively low SP in relation to their net assets or value. As we all know ACA have been under the cosh for sometime, heavily shorted and due to the dispute wrote a major asset down by 800k recently PENDING resolution and have their gold production and sale severely restricted which suffering from a high cost base that catered for full production. These factors weigh heavily on the SP. Barrick were supposed to be negotiating on our behalf and not on their own - the result feels like your own divorce lawyer hooking up with you X while you are negotiating the settlement and totally shafting you in the process.

I have put ideas of a premium aside (for now) but look at our 2016 balance sheet and forward looking statements to get a true idea of ACA value. If Barrick were doing what we had a right to expect of them and they wanted to acquire the o/s shares they should accept, if the GoT do not want ACA in the final agreement (although of course this is not a legal or justified position) then that is just a technicality that any reasonable negotiator could document around without prejudicing the minority shareholders. Any past action to which the GoT have taken such offence to was undertaken with the implicit approval or instruction of Barrick as the Major or for some time (Barrick Africa) the sole owner, so to suggest that ACA as an entity by itself conspired to defraud or otherwise harm GoT is frankly rubbish. A company has it own legal identity in law but no consciousness!

We have relied on comments that Barrick have a deal on the table along the lines of that advised by JT, I feel we have every right to expect this deal and the subsequent revival to value, to be taken into account within any offer that Barrick make for us.

I do not believe anyone accepts that the fraud in consignment value to which ACA are accused has any merit - if it takes a decision by the court of International Arbitration to prove that then I would prefer to wait - if the deal that Barrick and GoT have agreed can be put in place, meaning that ACA can be valued at a fair value post dispute for the benefit of ALL shareholders then so be it

We are not alone many Institutional investors entered at the float at £5.75, Odey has made his positive clear and BlackRock are not going to be a pushover so unless Barrick start to be reasonable then this will be heading to court. A fair deal for all or no deal.

I have always been a big fan of Barrick and it’s team but the proposal is opportunistic and blatantly unfair. No one believed GoT when they maintained ACA were cheating and they slapped a fine of $190 billion on us. Now all of a sudden the people we trusted to negotiate fairly on our behalf tell us, ‘sorry the GoT will not deal with you, our subsidiary’, and instead of agreeing a deal that is subject to shareholder approval of a sale, they, our trusted partners, tell us that they will buy us out at this unacceptable price and then sort a deal out with GoT themselves. Effectively putting all of the cost of the dispute onto the minority shareholders. I am truly disappointed and shocked. We have nothing to lose here by pushing on with the arbitration process however long it takes and let the chips fall where they may. No $300 m to GoT, no 16% of the company or a 50/50 split - we have nothing to lose, we will always be worth more than this.

Yes simply rule 8 - Takeover Panel - notifications for any company holding more than 1%.

Hi Super the indicative offer price is fixed to that of Barrick SP so the ACA SP is likely to move in relation to that which is in turn affected by PoG.

You are quite right Paul - if Barrick were acting in good faith and the GoT had an issue with certain person or people within ACA, then they could be removed enabling the GoT to then settle an agreement with the entity that is ACA - for Barrick to suggest anything else is disingenuous.

Owls, thank you. I still find this situation hard to digest - it seems that the entire cost of the dispute and everything that has followed is to be borne by the minority shareholders. This is not a just or equitable solution. This is a stitch up and must not be allowed to stand.

I won’t give you my long list of regrets Pat - we should not be in this position. Barrick have let us down and I did not see it coming.

I hope the BOD of ACA are considering the push me pull you clause that will almost certainly exist within the shareholders agreement with Barrick. ACA are holding a lot of cash and could raise the rest by loan or an open offer to existing shareholders to offer to buy out Barrick’s shares. By my calculation at £1.50 per share this would cost about £400 million sound a lot but a rights issue on a one for one basis would raise half that needing them to plug the gap via loans and placing - cheap - count me in for £500k.

I will not be selling Super - I have held too long to give up without a fight now. With regard to voting rights, I believe Barrick maintain they do have a right to vote but the AcA board and I would suggest all of the 36% minority shareholders maintain that they cannot. Barrick have apparently appealed to FSA but not supported by ACA board so unlikely. We do have minority rights to protect us and the likes of BlackRock and Odey will I hope ensure that regardless of premium we are offered at least a fair price which should be determined as a post deal with GoT as a going concern and not a fire sale otherwise we will be much better off to proceed with International Arbitration defending the original outrageous claims made by GoT and as Barrick have let us down so badly pursue a settlement with GoT directly and independently of Barrick. But as I am afraid has now been proven beyond doubt - what the hell do I know.

I am still feeling pretty bad about the situation and no less than betrayed by Barrick. As other posters have pointed out Barrick handled the negotiations (for which we have paid the legal bills) almost from beginning to end and part of their job should have been to heal any bad feeling that existed between GoT and the old management of ACA who would have been acting under the direction of Barrick from float. It is not now for GoT to say who they will and will not transact with - we are well advanced with International Arbitration and we should press on with that. To make an offer at this level does not reflect in any way the true value of ACA - we wrote Baly down by this much last year. Agreement with GoT would have seen the price jump considerably from here in anticipation of normal business and would have closed the shorts. For Barrick to structure the offer on a no deal heavily shorted position screams collusion and shows utter contempt for us as minority shareholders- there is no way this offer will be accepted. I cannot help believing, despite my previous assurances that it would not happen, Barrick are not operating in good faith. I will support any action to oppose this deal and whereas I would have previously welcomed the opportunity to become a long term Barrick shareholder - I will now never invest in them. Of course I expect negotiation but this, as others have said, is opportunistic and insulting.

Massively disappointed. Our current SP bears no relationship to our value. Fully operational we can produce 900-1000 000 ounces of gold per annum and should be valued at that. I have been a supporter of Barrick throughout but feel cheated and massively let down. The offer is not good enough by a long way. A little to angry to write - check back in later.

More trouble over North Mara - can’t help but think that nothing will be resolved until everything is resolved.

Sorry I meant the LSE beta site (beta.lae.co.uk) for someone as active as you are I think you will prefer it.

HH, I am using the ii beta site - it has been accurate all afternoon - crisp appearance worth switching overz

PANMURE INITIATES FRESNILLO WITH 'HOLD' - TARGET 811 PENCE

M, just read the article in the Mail online. First part clears up the WhatsApp debacle but I find the second part questioning the banks future much more troubling for shareholders - as I have mentioned before my hand was wavering above the buy button but for the moment at least it is firmly back in my pocket - the damage to MTRO’s reputation and a possible takeover have to be weighed up.

Stuart, good post. This was certainly what I had originally thought they might do enabling Directirs and their friends (as insiders) to buy larger stakes without restrictions. I am not so sure now as I think the shorters would have been aware and already made their move but we shall soon find out.

Z, I think we can be fairly confident that we have seen the end of such cosy deals which always left a very bad taste.

F, I agree. Barrick need to accept responsibility for past failings by paying the full value for ACA. We can accept concessions rightly have to be made to the GoT so that ACA in whatever form and under whatever ownership can get on with Mining the gold that no one disputes is there. I still think Barrick will do the right thing and are not looking for the fight that would surely come from significant players if they do not step up but I can also accept that they are in no rush and will wait for the gold price (now $1300) and the exchange rate to be in their favour € = $1.3 today but with Labour and Conservative politicians about to throw in the towel on reaching a Brexit agreement £ likely to fall so all in all I am not expecting any real news before the AGM so shorters still have plenty of time to manoeuvre the stock as they see fit.

Hi Traveller, yes until the market size is reviewed, it was fine for £40 per share but way to low for £5.