Member Info for daramuda

Never proved but I trust your instinct. If so, however, they could make an offer if they thought 36 pence undervalues the company.

I am not intending to do anything unless either J P Morgan or M & G want support at the meeting. I am just pointing out thoughts and I am too busy frankly with day to day work to start going back through posts on bbs etc. I agree with what Gib was told that this is a done deal unless ANOther wants to outbid Iluka in which case there would be more to say and something to support but no one so far has come forward. My guess is that the filed of Rutile producer miners is small and the whole of the market worldwide will know of this deal. On the basis that they know, it is a matter for them to approach JPM and M& G for support in s counter offer. I only have 250,000 shares so I am not in Gib's league but if something were to occur and a counter bidder wants to offer I will naturally lend my support. As for the offeror in 2013 for all we know it was Iluka - we just do not know although the "culprit" was suspected to be Chinese. If so that party will know about the Iluka offer and if it wants come forward and bid higher.

You have not upset me. Should a white knight come forward with a higher offer I would have thought all shareholders would support that. If it then came to a vote at the meeting whilst the vote might be carried in favour of Pala/Neon which I doubt since each would want the best price for their own shareholders then I could see a possible fight in court. The reason would be simple ; the company is shown to be worth more and minority shareholders need protection; we do not live in the British Virgin Islands. But you must keep an eye on the law i this respect. Whilst the board might argue that since the company is governed by the articles applicable by being registered as a BVI company, those rules apply. Your staring point is to google the words protection of the interests of minority shareholders. The argument may be academic. Irrespective of the fact that no one might com forward and offer more, we may all have thought this company worth more than it is in reality. Whilst house prices may be rising a house is still only worth what a buyer is willing to pay. We may all have deluded ourselves including Pala who may not be as good as they think they are and they may possibly have offered more than they should have in 2011 when they offered 30 pence a share and Jan Castro, the erstwhile chairman of Pala, may have been in error in paying 50 pence a share more recently. The fact is that the only offer on the table is that of Iluka. A lesson to be learned is do not invest in a company registered elsewhere than in the UK or get the authorities to ban companies registered elsewhere from being listed!!! Just my opinions

That is why I mentioned at one point the words "white knight". It would be good to know JP Morgan and M&G's positions. They control not far short of 40% between them. If you have not seen it it might (only might) be worthwhile seeing Morgan Stanley's comment on the Iluka ASX site yesterday or the day before talking about the bottom of the cycle. If this deal goes through Iluka will control quite a chunk of the world's quality rutile. I am just a tad surprised that the Chinese or Japanese have not shown an interest. Take care.

That is why I mentioned at one point the words "white knight". It would be good to know JP Morgan and M&G's positions. They control not far short of 40% between them. If you have not seen it it might (only might) be worthwhile seeing Morgan Stanley's comment on the Iluka ASX site yesterday or the day before talking about the bottom of the cycle. If this deal goes through Iluka will control quite a chunk of the world's quality rutile. I am just a tad surprised that the Chinese or Japanese have not shown an interest. Take care.

Look at SETS on google and you will get a commentary on SETS. That is as good as I can explain but in short it is an automatic trading system

Your comment about shareholders is a tad insulting. The likes of Gib,corbs, ricky myself and others have been invested in SRL for years. We have not done so with their eyes closed. It has long been considered that Pala would want to sell. That is their mo. Invest, give their expertise to the subject company in which they have invested, help turn it round and sell their stake (the evidence is on their own website). What no one thought is that they would organise a sale of the company (for we are all sure that is what has happened) at a time when production was beginning to escalate and prices for rutile had begun to harden and that the company would soon be back in profit, and not seek a decent price for their shares and the shares of all other shareholders. Further we did not foresee that the SRL broad would be complicit in a sale at a low price without recourse to independent advice which is what the board sought in 2011 when Pala offered 6 pence less for the company than they are getting now and were turned down. The circumstances leave a bad taste in the mouth and not in our eyes. Why did Pala do it? Did they have to has crossed my mind.

DJI is now a sets stock. AT trades are where you want to buy 5000 at a max of �1 and the order will be filled as the shares become available. That may come in 1s and 2s and so on.

It shows that you read it properly!! I must have caught you attention. It should have read 4 and not three. I only got 2 O levels in Mathematics or perhaps there were three or may be four. Are you proposing to fund a High Court action which would include an application to restrain the board from moving forward to complete the deal or are you moving to fund a higher offer for the company? Either way you will need a lawyer. Start with a resolution under the Companies Act where you need 5% of the issued share cap to call a resolution and work out what you r resolution or resolutions may be.

No need to apologise. There is a lot of frustration for long termers. I feel particularly sorry for Gibraltar and Corbine. I do not know how many Corbine has but Gibraltar has a load (c1%). We have seen the price at 80 pence and watched former directors paying 50-60 pence a share and those directors have been directors of Pala. And so one is entitled to think that the offer undervalues the company; it is logical to think that way. And so you have to think of the whys and wherefores as to why Pala are prepared to accept just 36 pence. And we are also entitled to wonder why we as shareholders are not entitled to have the directors get independent advice on the value of the company as the directors did when Pala offered 30 pence (just 6 pence less than Pala are prepared to accept now). That would not happen with a proper company. Either Pala and their directors did not really know the value of what they were dealing with; hence even their offer of 30 pence was at an overvalue which does not give much confidence in the ability of their directors. Or they have to sell and that imo can be for one of three reasons. First they have realised that with Sierra Rutile they did not understand the reality of the company and should not have invested in the first place. Second they are bored with their investment. Third they have an alternative proposition to invest in and want out of SRX to invest in something else and do not have the funds elsewhere for that project. Fourth they are in trouble and need to raise money urgently; hence a fire sale. What ever is the reason the board should act in the interests of ALL the shareholders. Given the reaction on this thread they have not. That view is imo supported by the fact that M&G and JP Morgan have not themselves given irrevocable undertakings in respect of their holdings. What ever the reason may be, I will never invest in a company in which Pala Investments are involved at any time in the future; nor will I ever invest in a public company where their home jurisdiction is BVI nor will I ever invest in a company where any of the SRX directors appear to be directors of the company I might be looking at. And so to those extents I agree with you. I have a colleague who has a mound of GKP. I may have a couple of other investments which I may recommend on a DYOR basis in a few days but I do not want any one to suffer in any way. The market is a gamble, AIM is under regulated . The authorities are spineless. They do little to protect the private investor. The advisers get their fees from the companies they represent so that means that they are always protecting their own position and so and so on. Doctors, solicitors, barristers, dentists and to an extent accountants and IFAs are heavily regulated. Nomads no; the FCA no; brokers no and by no I mean that they fill out forms but that appears to be that. Professional people I use take their duties seriously.End of lectur

Gib always said that the key was Pala. I think that you may be right mhair and also Pala could get no more from anyone else. We and others including past directors felt the company, infrastructure and the quantity and quality of the resource was worth more but if no one was prepared to pay the price everyone thought that it was worth better a bird in the hand. Sisay told me at the agm held July 2015 that he wanted to increase liquidity and see the company move to the main market. That proved a non starter possibly because they could not raise more money/shareholders earlier this year or maybe he did not have the acumen and experience to effect it. They landed up with three corporate brokers; perhaps that said it all. It would be good if there was a white knight but surely if there was one that knight would have appeared.

Unlikely as I read the release. A majority of votes is enough to carry the day at a meeting the date of which meeting have not been disclosed, Pala and Neon having given irrevocable undertakings in respect of their stock. Having settled down a bit, it is possible that Pala could not find any party who was willing to stump up more than 215 million for the company. They wanted out. It is possible that the price offered by ANOther in November 2013 was well down on the then price per share which at the time was 60 pence. It is possible that the deal to buy in that Pala effected in 2010/11 was not as good as they had thought. If an attempt is made to upset the deal one would need to exhaust Companies Act remedies first imo and one needs to have 5% to apply for a resolution. If you have connections within M&G and or JPMorgan it may be worth while getting in touch; I do not unfortunately.

Add the fact that it looks as if the Chinese were not as interested as some of us thought!!!!!

obritomf - many of us have been invested in this stock since say 2011 - corbs and Gib probably longer. Pala's normal MO is to take a financial interest give their expertise and sell out with a 3X return on their investment/. Sometime last year I calculated that over the years Pala's average was circa 17pence a figure with which Gib did not disagree (or so he posted at the time). Whilst many had a value higher than what would be 51pence on my calculation, they seemed to know more about the company than me. As corbs states Jan Castro was paying 50-55 pence per share before he stood down as chairman. Barton took over and he has now gone and left without any notice. The board was changed to make it "more independent". At least in 2011 when Pala offered 30 pence a share for the rest of the share cap it did not own as corbs says the matter was referred for independent advice. Now nothing but why. Why after all their hard work is Pala selling at a figure which looks insufficient. Was the figure offered in 2013 about the same. Cannot they get more? It is not as simple as saying big boys little boys or doing a Winnifrith and accusing the City of this and that. It is why have Pala sold so cheaply - nothing more nothing less. It makes no sense. And why have JP Morgan and M & G not given irrevocable undertakings?

but I cannot see what us relative small fry can do. We speak for less than 5%. But why did not JP Morgan and M & G add their names to the irrevocable undertakings given to Iluka in respect of their stock?

The shares that are sold at 34.75-35 will be picked up and those buyers will wait for the 36% and get a small uplift. tigerwoody - there is nothing that you have to do. On the basis that the deal completes the 36 pence per share will come to you. No response from Gib or Corbs both of whom must be flabbergasted by the news. Perhaps Pala have calls on them or perhaps they have found something better in which to invest. After 6 years they have doubled their money. I thought that their criteria would be a minimum of 3X.

If I have read it right they have 36 million shares - release to the market this morning. If part of those shares were acquired Friday 3 weeks ago why a disclosure only now? Do the rule as to disclosure only apply to UK companies? I doubt it.

from Pala and Neon Liberty who between them speak for 59% but not from the other iis. Might anyone else get busy?

I cannot understand why Pala have let go of it at this price.

Congratulations Sir - what an interesting post. Thank you for the relief. I was not selling anyway but your post has caused me to pull up the draw-bridge in case I had a change of mind.