Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
SjL can correct me if I am wrong here..MMX are being served notice that legal action is intended.....Unless.....They are not being served notice of proceedings with a High Court registration number...That is the point litigation starts ,and the point at which MMX have to inform the market...There are many cases of legal exchange at this point not being RNS.d..
It wouldn't surprise me.if there was no.RNS...I've been invested in Cos that have had legal.papers served and they take the view that litigation is so far off that an RNS is not needed....So far the storm.is on this BB ..
.
I think the market was pretty sanguine about this on Thurs /Fri...Its PIs hay are going to drop the SP imho...If this is worst case...it will take years and then it's down how we trade...If there is engagement then we could see an early resolution...I'm staying put because I believe it will be resolved....
That's what we need ...the rest is cherry on the cake at the moment
You know SjL that I have said from the start ,that the truth should be acted on..I stand by that.What I havnt liked is the way you have gone about this on a shareholder BB...I say to you ,without hesitation that you have the right to know whether you were lied to...I'm sure that now you have taken action you will have the answers to your questions ,and I very much hope before it reaches any court.
What I wonder is ,whether you will be satisfied in any eventuality,ie if it is demonstrated that the warrants were clean...
For what its worth ,I will email the company /Chairman and tell him that he must act on what he must know is the truth.I believe that if you were duped the company must engage with you immediately
I think that is fair enough on my part..?
Are you sure that you understand what I'm saying?..
They could not pull of the scam you are alleging alone, at minimum blind eyes would have had to be turned..
That should read..I dont doubt their deceptive nature..reduced to a phone atm
An incredible train of events indeed..Unbelievable that they could think to get away with it.I do t doubt their deceptive nature,the dividend debate alone convinced me last year that we were being played,absolute confirmation came in March,when the dividend was suspended.
My problem with the warrants is that it went beyond them..The chairman,(dont think he should still be in that position) had to ok it..Lawyers had to draft the warrants ...MMX would have had to be reasonably satisfied that the payments were recoverable.Im not saying they couldn't,as the executive team have pulled the wool over the non executives eyes,but unlike the accounting fraud ,they would have needed to jump a few hurdles to achieve alone in safety.
The BOD will know the truth...I say act on what that truth is.
So sorry to have been an annoyance on the thread view..just never liked it...I would like to thank you for the years of quality posting a d to say that I am sorry you have moved on...I perfectly understand and wish you well with your future investments.
It's been a horrible journey for us long term holders...I'm hanging in but really would like to be free of this company...Let's see if this latest car crash can be resolved..Atb Mac.
It looks like the SP is being supported by the buyback ,and there appears to be an exchange of shares going on at the same time..5.10 trades all day long...
The idea here is to spook the PIs.into selling and apply pressure on the BOD from the resulting drop....So far it's not working , but the buyback can only take up so much..Its really down to how PIs respond...so.largely in our hands.
I would also take fraud allegations on the warranties with a pinch of salt...key to this is how MMX respond...So far they havnt...
Indeed SjL..But didnt you say just yesterday that you would disengage from all.by not posting...oh well...Oh and All shareholders will suffer here Including all your mates..
I hope that we get to the truth if this does fo.all the way...the truth being ,knowing both sides of the story...
We are to expect liars and cheats and that's ok?.Name a single person who has supported the disgraceful actions of TH and MS...Unless you think that people who are critical of you are by default defenders of the two departed...?
SjL. We know it was serious because they were sacked...sacked means it stinks...I would not expect the company to air specific details in public..just as the two "resigning by mutual agreement" but this all leads on to my suspicion that you are opportunistic.
SjL...to be blunt ,I no longer trust you..I find you unreliable.You said...You would not sell your shares ,then you did...your right of course...but why say I'm not selling...Then you said ,you would not be taking legal action and had no agenda...and have gone back on that ...Now you are conducting some kind of justification on a shareholders BB ...why..? To spook people...' I just had a conference call with my lawyers papers in on Monday...what's that all about.?. You say that you care about your friends investment..but you know that you will delay there return to profit...So SjL...if you have had wrong doing inflicted on you..I would like the company to do the right thing ...but to again to be blunt ,I dont like the way you operate...hence my not so.sympathetic stance...
We have only one side of the story here .Its possible that TH and MS fit the bill as a handy excuse to cry foul insted or accepting that poor decisions were made ...".I was duped "is an easy way to avoid ones own short comings.
Leaving aside any warranties on the China debt.i would have walked before that ,just on inspection of the .London contract and various partner payments..Nobody was duped there,It was plain to see how bad it was...
The BOD will already know where they stand..If there was wrong doing I would like to see them reach out to SjLi. If this is merely an opportunistic move to take advantage of recent events, then I hope they will be robust in there defence of what would be a deeply cynical move.
Let me put it this way....As a PI investor ,like you,had I known how bad the .London contract was at the time of the ICM takeover I would have sold all.my shares at the going 10/12p price range at the time...
The warranties related to business in China ?They did not cover items ,such as poor contracts ,partner payments and the general operational state of the business...
Its difficult for us PI investors to be clear on what exactly happened in respect of the provisioning of debt relating to China...I cant help feel.that there is opportunism at the heat of this,given the behaviour of TH and MS on other matters.
What for me is clearer ,is the lamentable due diligence undertaken by the ICM team.It is quite astonishing that having had full access to the books,items ,such as the London contract and partner payments did not send up the red flags.
Of course ,poor due diligence is not an MMX issue.
The BOD will have taken a view on their position already ,I feel ,and if so ,their answer seems clear from what SjL is reporting here.
The great shame for us and inveator friends of SjL, is that ,instead of participating in the recovery he is delaying their return to profitability and a decent exit price ,should this continue..
Excellent interview that give I good over view of the assets..It is not remotely possible for Alba to finance all these projects..It will require joint ventures ,particularly in Greenland...Our assets are superb and will attract majors, individuals with deep pockets wont do it..What is clear is that we have a rediculous valuation...Assay results cant come soon enough.
Yes thanks Bakky...SjL..I wont labour this for.too much longer..there are two sets of provisions.1 $12m re bad contracts...On that....Yes I am.sure that had you known it was on the cards you would have said something..My point is that *(a)The due diligence period you had was not exacting enough.You should have seen that there was a problem with ,eg .London contract had that due diligence been done correctly.
The second provisioning .China VIP sales..
What date was that announced..not 12 days later ,was it..?.Sure it was for the accounting period that finished 12days later...but what happened after that time may no have been foreseen.
I do believe that the BOD will make a decision based on what they see and know..It looks to me that they have already made the call.
As much as we may regret,myself included,that you are not a part of the solution here ,but actually a stone in our shoe,we must focus on future business and not your legal contemplation.
I do t believe it was on the cards at the time of the ICM to provision the $12m...that discussion came later. But what kind of due diligence were you doing..This isnt HSBC its MMX ..could you not see that there were this really bad London contract that could only be dealt with in a provisioning manner...You had the books ..nobody else here has had that kind of insight...