Member Info for Chatmandu

@tellysong

I bought £10k @ 19.6p.

I'm down 84% (£8,400 loss).

I feel your pain and you have my sympathies. That's a large chunk of money that Leon has obliterated.

I asked ChatGPT to make my views compliant...

"The recent change in broker, coinciding with the proposed sale of Jubilee's PGM business, does raise some legitimate questions. Given that PGM prices have increased and many investors feel the asset may be undervalued, it's natural to want more transparency around the deal — especially since the buyer hasn’t yet been disclosed.

While there’s no suggestion of wrongdoing, the lack of detail may create uncertainty for shareholders. One can't help but wonder if there were differences in approach between the company and the outgoing broker. I hope the forthcoming circular will provide clearer information to help investors understand the full rationale behind the transaction.

If the new broker has been brought in due to a closer alignment with the board’s strategy, it raises questions about whether we’ll see a truly independent valuation. I hope the new broker will act in the best interests of all shareholders and provide objective guidance."

@happydays

It depends who is buying the SA operation.

If it's all above board, then our board should be trying to maximise shareholder value.

If something else is taking place, as per @Craigmccollum306's comment on the RNS thread, then it would make sense to minimise the sale price.

At this stage, it is all starting to look very odd.

Please feel free to replace the word 'odd' with a more suitable term.

A shell company associated with an existing player?

@Craigmccollum306

It will be interesting to see who the buyer is and who they're connected to.

@edzi

If you want a reply, you could try buying this domain and using it to send him an email. ;-)

slaiterinvestments.com

@ActuaryBoi

"It's quite clear that at current PGM prices the sale will not be accepted by shareholders as it's very profitable at the moment."

Unfortunately, I don't think it is that clean cut. The Institutional Investors own enough shares to pass any vote.

Maybe you are actually stupid.

I haven't made any statements, allegations.

I have published personal opinions, which are covered under 'honest opinion (previously known as fair comment)'.

"Only two PGM sale scenarios make any sense (to me):"

I'm guessing you copied your input from AI. Here's what ChatGPT has to say.

Perhaps you could run things past ChatGPT the next time you want to throw the term around?

____________

This comment, as written, would likely not be considered libellous, but let's break it down carefully and explain why.

What is libel?

Libel is a false written statement that damages a person's (or company's) reputation. To qualify as libel, a statement must generally be:

Defamatory – it harms the reputation of the person or entity.

False – it must not be true.

Presented as fact – not clearly an opinion.

Published – shared with a third party.

Identifiable – directed at a specific person or entity.

Analysing the Comment

Let’s break the comment into its parts:

1. "Only two PGM sale scenarios make any sense (to me): [...]"

This is clearly presented as the author's personal opinion, especially with the parenthetical “to me.” Courts generally recognize opinion as protected speech and not libel, particularly when it's stated in a speculative or rhetorical format.

2. "We need the money to fund either Zambia or an undisclosed black hole in the company finances."

This part could be sensitive, as it implies there might be hidden financial issues (i.e., a "black hole"). However:

It's framed as speculation: “either Zambia or an undisclosed black hole.”

The phrase "black hole" is colloquial and metaphorical—not a factual claim.

It doesn’t make an explicit accusation of fraud or misconduct.

Still, this wording edges closer to risk, especially if the implication is taken to suggest mismanagement or dishonesty. But as it's speculative and not presented as a factual claim, it likely remains within the bounds of fair comment or opinion.

3. "An institutional investor is insisting upon the sale. If so, why? [...] buyer has any links to the institutional investors and/or board."

Again, these are questions and speculation, not assertions. Libel generally doesn’t arise from questions, unless they're clearly loaded with false implications. These questions do hint at possible conflicts of interest, but they stop short of alleging improper behaviour.

4. "If Zambia is going to be 'capital light', then the sale seems pointless. What are we all missing / not being told?"

These are again rhetorical and speculative statements, not claims of fact. They reflect frustration or scepticism rather than accusations.

You're too *stupid* to understand the difference between posting a *personal opinion regarding possible explanations* for an event and a libellous statement which *presents an defamatory untruth as fact*.

@gotreal - it's a bit rich of you to repeatedly accuse people of being stupid, when you don't even know basic things, such as the meaning of the word 'libel'.

If I was feeling charitable, I'd suggest that Gotreal and Shuvlin need to learn what libel actually is.

In reality, I think they know exactly what it is - but they throw the term around in an attempt to silence fair comment and criticism of the way the company is being run.

Why is that? Perhaps they have one of these 'agendas' that they keep accusing everybody else of having?

Just to be absolutely clear - *somebody posting an opinion that you don't like, is not libel*.

@PapakiLegodi

Only two PGM sale scenarios make any sense (to me):

1) We *need* the money to fund either Zambia or an undisclosed black hole in the company finances.

2) An institutional investor is insisting upon the sale. If so, why? When the buyer is announced, it will be interesting to know if the buyer has any links to the institutional investors and/or board.

If Zambia is going to be 'capital light', then the sale seems pointless.

What are we all missing / not being told?

As previously mentioned by somebody on this board, would a vote against the PGM sale be seen as a tacit green light for yet more dilution to fund Zambia?

"You've tied my hands and this is the only way we can adequately fund the Zabian dream."

@bottomup

People on this site are obsessed with 'agendas' and attempts to 'move the share price'.

I'm simply curious why @PapakiLegodi is grateful for the delay - e.g. he thinks the bid is holding down the price and is using it as an opportunity to increase his holdings.

@PapakiLegodi

Could you please elaborate? Are you bullish and using this uncertainty to increase your holdings?

And... he's now conducting a fire sale of the remaining family silver at knock down prices.

How is it libellous to state that you think a CEO is running a company into the ground? That's completely fair criticism when the CEO has presided over an 80% fall in the share price.

Gotreal and Shuvlin are living in a parallel universe..

How can they continue to cheerlead for Leon when all the evidence suggests he's a grifter that running the company into the ground.

This PGM sale reminds me of Vodafone's sale of Verizon Wireless. It was a massive cash generator for Vodafone (although payments were patchy because Verizon was trying to force Vodafone to sell by withholding dividends). They ended up selling the business and paid out a big dividend.

Two years later the company was on the rocks without that cash income.

@shuvlin

So the market is currently valuing the Zambia operation at zero or considers the South African operation a net liability or considers management/operations to be a major net liability upon both South Africa and Zambia.