Member Info for Crazytowner

Worth noting that AH was not removed, he stepped down as I think one is required to at each AGM and the votes meant that he was not reappointed

Absolutely no reason that the BOD would be required to put such a derisory offer forward to shareholders.

Fair play, can confirm that myself and RL were exchanging financial model spreadsheets.

Good to see you back

Agreed Sasa, I don't believe it was him.

For those who did not vote, I think it would be a good idea to let AMC & the Nomad know which way you would have gone.
At the very least it will give an idea of the support they could expect if they table something back to us.
For the sake of a quick email, it might make a difference to what happens next.

To:
info@amurminerals.com
contact@spangel.co.uk

Subject: AMC AGM Result

Dear Sir / Madam,

Following the recent AGM results I would like it to be known that whilst my votes were not submitted, i would have voted to re-appoint Adam Habib.

I control XXXXXXXXX AMC shares.

Kind regards

XXXXXX

I am presently awaiting a call back from the Nomad to see whether my votes made it in.

Appreciate your openess.

It seems to me that despite all of our differing opinions, the one thing we would'nt have done (whether we did or didnt vote, is vote against Adams reelection).

If as the legal statement suggests this is not what the BOD expected, then we have an entity / entities that don't want the asset security, contacts and financial plan that Adam brings to Kun Manie.

This does concern me. Not because I dont think we will make a good return, but because we might not make the great return possible if an early low ball offer comes in.

BobTpt,

I disagree, PIs being perfectly happy with everything are even less likely to vote.

The recent EGM which was one of the most important votes to date had just 3% voting of which a good chunk were mine and the boards.

I suspect many shareholders felt similar to myself in that the resolutions were ok and had confidence that their was now a financial strategy developing under Adam that would hopefully result in no further dilution (regardless of past performance).
The worst i invisaged happening was the 200m share issue authority being rejected, which didnt really bother me as they would either be able to deliver on the plan of no further dilution or have to come back to us later.

We were complacent and as a result something very unexpected has now occurred.

How did you vote if you don't mind me asking (no judgement with how you did or if you did).
I suspect you did'nt like many of us, but if you did / would have, based on your grievences, would you have voted against Adams re-election?

Mike, your lame analogy simply proves my point.

MD,
Its all very well PIs looking to blame the BOD, demand answers and request a re vote when quite frankly it's our own faults for not mobilising and voting.
We have caused this current problem and I hope it can be rectified. Blaming AMC for past issues is just a cop out when the vote was all about looking forward.

Lawers that specialise in BVI company law are most likely based in the BVI.

This is obviously important to get right and so I would much rather time was taken to do correctly, rather than rushed and damage any future recourse.

Yesterdays RNS literally said they will make a further statement in due course.

Today might be a bit soon due to the time difference with the BVI.

Also, if an entity owns more than 3% of the shares in various accounts and used these to vote Adam out, it could take a little while for the Nomad / AMC and lawyers to ascertain.

I have also asked for confirmation as to whether my votes were included as had left late and could quite possibly change the result

Morning Shadowless,

I saw the 200m shares as a little irrelevant to be honest.
If they were approved they would be available if needed for the future.
If they were not approved but needed later then they would simply come back to us with an EGM to obtain them.

Removing a key man who has defensively positioned AMC by bringing in a revenue stream, brought a major into discussions and had a plan to not have to come back to investors is something completely different

Lucando,
I think CBS quite clearly answered that earlier with regard to the legal sratement.
If it was a board decision there would be no reason to include that

Negative sentiment around a share, a long time surpressed share price and a lot of shares issued low in the past 12 months can be very beneficial to a low ball take over offerer.

Whilst before I would have said that the BOD recommendation to reject or accept an offer carried a lot of weight, this has obviously been eroded.

Adam was clearly our link with Glencore. Him not being on our board is obviously a blow to our partnership.

I don't believe the BOD voted against the reappointment.
I don't believe that normal PIs voted against the reappointment.

I think somebody is positioning themselves to take over AMC and pay as little as possible.

Millions of votes against his reappointment because he sold a few k of shares which would have been sanctioned by the Nomad and company secretary.

I don't think PIs are that stupid

Absolutely spot on CBS.
The true reward for us is multiple parties bidding for us and Adam seems to have been the person to make that happen with both his financial strategy and contacts.
Its times like these that I miss the comments of TDT and Red Lee

It sat at about 99% long for the last 6 months or so

On a positive note, IG is showing 100% long and so it seems somebody used this drop to close a short.

The problem is CBS is that with such low voter turnout, an entity with just less than 3% could control the vote.

However, I would suspect an entity that would vote in such a way is holding more than 3% and so am hoping that the votes and share holder register are currently under microscopic scrutiny by the Nomad, AMC and lawyers.

Very well said CBS.
Never a dull moment with AMC