Member Info for dflynch

GCM Resources plc announced that it has entered into a Relationship Agreement with Polo Resources Limited ("Polo") (the "Agreement"). Polo is currently a private limited company and owns 28.3% of the Company's issued share capital. The purpose of the Relationship Agreement is to ensure that the Company is capable of carrying on, at all times, its business independently of Polo.

The Relationship Agreement has a minimum term of one year from the execution date, and thereafter will terminate if the ordinary shares of the Company cease to be admitted to trading on AIM or Polo ceases to retain an aggregate interest of 25% or more of the issued ordinary share capital of the Company. The Company confirms in relation to the Loan Facility with Polo announced on 3 February 2020, it has drawn down a further £250,000 in accordance with the terms announced thereon. The Company has utilised currently £3.2million of the £3.5million facility.

This current drawdown along with existing cash balances will be sufficient to fund the Company for a further 3 months.

Datuk Michael Tang PJN (Executive Chairman) is Chairman of the Company’s largest shareholder, Polo Resources Limited, and is the principal of Mettiz Capital Limited, an investment company. Datuk Tang has significant corporate and financial experience in natural resources, power generation, healthcare, technology, manufacturing and real estate. Datuk Tang qualified as a barrister at Lincoln’s Inn and holds a Bachelor of Law degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Datuk Tang was conferred the Distinguished Order for Meritorious Service (“Panglima Jasa Negara”) which carries the honorific title of “Datuk” by His Majesty King of Malaysia. The award was in recognition of his invaluable service and contribution to the nation.

Polo Resources investment in CGM Resources plc is 23.8%

GCM Resources plc (GCM), an AIM listed resource exploration and development company, has identified a world-class coal resource of 572 million tonnes (JORC 2004 compliant) at the Phulbari Coal and Power Project (the Project) in North-West Bangladesh. GCM is awaiting approval from the Government of Bangladesh to develop the Project.

So how can an individual be a Chairman of an AIM listed company (GCM) and honoured by His Majesty King of Malaysia and be so opaque in regard to another AIM listed company, Polo Resources (POL), albeit suspended because of actions under the control of that individual?

The connection between the two companies is significant; so would it not be in the best interests of GCM shareholders to be alerted that what happened to POL could also happen to GCM?

Datuk Michael Tang PJN (Executive Chairman) is Chairman of the Company’s largest shareholder, Polo Resources Limited, and is the principal of Mettiz Capital Limited, an investment company. Datuk Tang has significant corporate and financial experience in natural resources, power generation, healthcare, technology, manufacturing and real estate. Datuk Tang qualified as a barrister at Lincoln’s Inn and holds a Bachelor of Law degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Datuk Tang was conferred the Distinguished Order for Meritorious Service (“Panglima Jasa Negara”) which carries the honorific title of “Datuk” by His Majesty King of Malaysia. The award was in recognition of his invaluable service and contribution to the nation.

Polo Resources investment in CGM Resources plc is 23.8%

GCM Resources plc (GCM), an AIM listed resource exploration and development company, has identified a world-class coal resource of 572 million tonnes (JORC 2004 compliant) at the Phulbari Coal and Power Project (the Project) in North-West Bangladesh. GCM is awaiting approval from the Government of Bangladesh to develop the Project.

So how can an individual be a Chairman of an AIM listed company (GCM) and honoured by His Majesty King of Malaysia and be so opaque in regard to another AIM listed company, Polo Resources (POL), albeit suspended because of actions under the control of that individual?

The connection between the two companies is significant; so would it not be in the best interests of GCM shareholders to express concern that what happened to POL could also happen to GCM.

Of interest?

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4bac88ea-e95e-485e-a064-3dcf8bc373d7

I think that you have both become a little confused with my contribution.

As pointed out in the link

“However, the relationship between the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the Board of Directors (Board) is the most crucial, and the state of this relationship has potentially the greatest influence on organisational success.”

And;

“Role clarity is essential to ensuring a productive CEO/Board relationship. The primary role of the Board is to govern, to control managerial opportunism and to ensure that CEOs carry out their managerial functions and duties in the best interests of Members.”

To remove the CEO from the Hurricane BoD would leave him as an employee with the BoD ensuring “…that CEOs carry out their managerial functions and duties in the best interests of Members.” Same applies to the CFO.

Executive directors are employees of the company, who manage the company day-to-day, and sit on the BoD.

Non-executive directors are not employees, albeit they are paid director fees, and are, inter alia, there to hold executive directors to account – theoretically representing shareholder’s interests. They do not manage the company on a day-to-day basis.

In any event I will not contribute further at the moment as I am away, on a “Christmas promise” ??

I am also curious as to the constitution of the future board.

If the proposals go through then we would have a BoD consisting of two non-executive directors.

Then of course would share-holders vote all the current non-executive directors (CA nominees) off the BoD?

Or is this a cunning plan by CA that they remain by popular acceptance in any vote, and CA can claim they were independently re-appointed by shareholders?

Devious ploy, or too much conspiracy theory?

CSVP

Surely what changes is they have to take direction from the BoD instead of following their own agenda.

Not to follow the BoD direction wouldthen allow the BoD to cease their employment!

1602
"... taken directly from the HUR RNS"

1. That Philip Wolfe be removed from office as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
2. That Antony Maris be removed from office as a director of the Company with immediate effect.
3. That Richard Chaffe be removed from office as a director of the Company with immediate effect.

1607
Which brings on the next question. Who takes on the positions of CEO and CFO and who is left to take up the position to represent the company to fulfil the terms for HUR to trade on AIM. there appears to be a discrepancy between sacking the board and that of replacing key positions.

Sorry to ask but where in the RNS does it require the CEO and the CFO to be removed from the company's employ?

Surely the issue is their remaining as Executive Directors!

"Surely we should have been informed of the end bid date this is material information!"

Agreed - it certainly puts a different slant on the matter.

Similar experience. You can take the Rights accrued in an ISA into a non-ISA account if you don't have the funds in the ISA

Whilst ISA investments are CGT free I would caution that CGT losses in ISA investments cannot be offset against other non-ISA gains.
If you ISA invested in HUR at 20p then current losses of c12p per share cannot be utilised in offsetting non-ISA investment CGT gains.
However, if you ISA invested in HUR at 2p then your CGT gain of c6p per share will be of no interest to HMRC

I know "the market" has no memory but SP in October 2018, when the issue occurred, was c£20 - will we get back there?

FYI - Sweden's largest mine!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTgaUu6_kXA&ab_channel=ABB

Oldman.

You can view the list at the registered office, or the offices of the company's registrars - Computershare, but it would be difficult to obtain a copy.

Furthermore, the majority of private shareholdings will be amalgamated into nominee accounts which are held in the custody of brokers etc.

That, for example, Barclays have a 5% shareholding is indicative of the amount of shares they hold in their nominee accounts, and these accounts are the amalgamation of many private shareholders. The company's registrars therefore do not know details of these individual private shareholders.

To access details of individual shareholders, whose holdings are held in nominee accounts, would require an approach to the custodians of the nominee accounts.

I don't believe that anyone would be successful in obtaining any information from the custodians as to the identity of beneficial owners of the shares in a nominee account.

My original investment was based on the micro-channel FT technologies ability to address the emmissions issue from coal-fired power stations! With the passage of time I wonder if the decision to forgo this avenue of development was correct - given the vast coalfields of the UK and the current energy problems!

CA could request an exemption from the AIM market authorities to comply with the requirement to make a bid. They have a good case for an exemption.

There is nothing to prevent one shareholder holding more than 30% of shares. I cite PPS as one such example.

Any bid by CA would have to be at the minimum price they purchased HUR shares in the previous 12 months.

Did they make a purchase during that period?

CSVP - Commentaire s'il vous plaît,

Speculation on the back of a *** packet!

Shares currently issued 1,992,000,000

CA holding @ c29 % = 557,680,000

Cost of purchasing this number of shares at 8p = £46Million

Money available for purchase / capital return c£62Million

Alternatively, c£62Million could purchase CA’s holding at 11p per share

CSVP

I wonder if we will get a Director/PDMR Shareholding RNS shortly!

Purchase HUR shares as non-Exec director perhaps?