Member Info for Fukurokuju79

Yeah very quiet here. Not a bad thing.

Anyone have a look? Was it live?.

I didn't see it. Will try watch tomorrow..

Atb

Not sure we will in not sure what else they will have to report?
Probably at a fair depth now though. All being well.

I may have spoke too soon with the onwards and upwards terminology :)

Just have to let the price do its thing I guess. It's slowly getting there and the chances of a deal / the outlook for ARCM if no deal have certainly improved with the recent government changes and court ruling.

Anyway NvS eats strategy for breakfast so we're in good hands, right Fulmar :) lol

Still chuckling at that.

Atb

Who knows Ella.

I can't say if the transfer itself should be notifiable but as per my research below I believe the exemption under collateral taker section of disclosure rules are notification exempt. Its this rather than being a non UK issuer that's the actual exemption though IMO.

The fact they are outside the UK however, and the person in question is 'allegedly' (cover my ar$e) a fraudulent con artist, I don't suppose much can be done. It's down to the holder to notify the company etc.

MM wouldn't have bothered.

Either way his position will be being sold out by the sounds of it.

In reality we wouldn't have got much more detail if we were notified. He had 6% so we'd only have known when he crossed below 5%, then nothing notifiable after that.

Onwards and upwards.

Atb

Yes the new incumbent isn't messing around.

Honestly I'm not happy to see it.
While I think it gives DJG a lot of humble pie with his custard or cream after he set the gauntlet, sadly lots of others have lost significant money there.
Not good for them as often people over extend on shares that get ramped. Shares easily go to huge values on hot air but they burst faster.
Hopefully the damage isnt critical.
Sadly the DJGs of the world will continue.
Atb

So while a Person must notify the issuer of the percentage of its voting rights he holds as shareholder or holds or is deemed to hold through his direct or indirect holding of financial instruments.

And there is still a non UK issuer obligation to disclose (albeit with different thresholds as detailed in my previous post) ; I have found a possible exclusion.

Within the ..
Certain voting rights to be disregarded section it says....

(5) shares held by a collateral taker under a collateral transaction which involves the outright transfer of securities provided the collateral taker does not declare any intention of exercising (and does not exercise) the voting rights attaching to such shares

I suspect it MAY be under this exemption. MM transferred the securities to the shark. However said shark probably has waived intention to exercise any voting rights.

That's prob (possibly) it.

Atb

Oddly, I was looking into the FCA requirements of non UK issuers regarding the acquisition or disposal of significant shareholdings for a different share the other day.
This was why I mentioned the 5% threshold. As section 5.1 of the handbook says....

' (or in the case of a non-UK issuer on the basis of thresholds at 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50% and 75%) as a result of an acquisition or disposal of shares or financial instruments falling within DTR 5.3.1 R; or
(2) reaches, exceeds or falls below an applicable threshold in (1) as a result of events changing the breakdown of voting rights and on the basis of information disclosed by the issuer in accordance with DTR 5.6.1 Rand DTR 5.6.1A R;'

So I was/am of the view that if their position crosses below the threshold of 5%, then it's notifiable, even though non UK.

The recent block listing RNS stated 1,112,264,097 is the share figure that may be used by shareholders as the denominator or the calculations by which they will determine whether they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company, under the FCA's Disclosure and Transparency Rules.

Strangely MM isn't actually listed as a significant shareholder on ARCMs website under the AIM rule 26 disclosures. However Ella referenced he has 67.4 million shares detailed within the accounts reported last year. On this basis that represents 6.05% of the notifiable shares in issue.

Long and geeky story short....

I'm not sure under what exemption within the framework that this is not notifiable.Their are several exclusions from the notification requirements detailed within the FCA handbook around non UK issuers, trading book exemptions and exemptions for certain collective investment type vehicles. However I can't see anything obvious that would preclude this.

In light of my (potentially sleep inducing) info above I'd be interested in the reasons you understand that the position falling below the 5% threshold isn't notifiable?
I genuinely don't understand why they wouldn't have to notify. In which case it would be great to try encourage this disclosure, or one could assume they've a lot to sell still.

Thanks

Thanks F29 - I guess we assume it's the lot they had? Surely they have to notify if below 5%?
Think Ella said he had 67 million shares? That's about 2-3 million...

Should I buy more popcorn as last night wiped me out....

FTSE don't suppose you're familiar with someone called helpme01?
Anyway welcome, or potentially welcome back.
This is a great community board. It's like the Walton's here.
Everyone is open, honest and the chat is second to none.

Saw your retraction of huge after posting. ;)

Atb

''Because if circumstance of production change, and they are vulnerable, they have costs they cant meet and debtors they cant pay.''

I'm struggling to see what circumstances can change. Granted we had a stope collapse and we need(ed) capital. The stope collapsed ceased production, increased costs and reduced income, as we only had one stope. Which also impacted the grade of pay dirt. However..
-We now have multiple stopes
-Known grades (that will improve as we develop as per today's RNS)
- we have the infrastructure, port, buyers
- we have a safe jurisdiction
- we have a proven producing process

Sorry I just don't see a failure of production as 'huge risk of liquidation.' Certainly not now.
Production risk is a risk in any mining company. The biggest risk imv is that of copper pricing falling below the aisc but I can't see that, and we have much higher grade material being opened up.
Plus the risk the financing isn't finalised which is again very unlikely given its binding; and we have CLN financing as a backup (albeit not what I want!!).

Don't get me wrong. As I have said I'm open minded to twists and turns happening and to the fact it's clearly got risk. But huge risk of failure and insolvency I don't support that view personally.

No one can say for sure. We all take our own positions. No one can prove their view either way until it's happened.

I'm looking at this with as much of an unbias view as I can and I try listen with an open minded etc.

Atb

You can say that again !!

Badaboom

Noob...
'huge risk of liquidation here'...
Interesting view that.
Please expand on this huge risk you see.

I'm not saying this is risk free I mean nothing is, even blue chips, but huge risk of liquidation isn't a fair or true opinion to my mind.

We have proven and expanding resources, plant and infrastructure, port, now multiple stopes of available ore, turnaround specialists team, further capital imminent plus access too contingency capital, one of safest jurisdictions.

Too much tit for tat created between he1/RMM boards. Many have a chips on their shoulders, but save them all don't waste them we'll need them for the celebration buffet!!

Both can do well. Both can fail. Biggong be biggons. No need for one upmanship.

Atb to you

Indeed.
Future should be bright over time and today's RNS was fabulous.
Will be peaks and troughs en route but as long as we get to the end destination I don't intend to get off the bus, unless it starts heavy smoking and look like a breakdown lol

Have a good day too.
Atb

Yes my last posts were unclear.

When I say they get the assets i mean as per the RNS I e. on a 'first ranking security' basis. Clearly this just means they get first priority on payment of their deby etc.

What the assets would go for though in a liquidation/administration event I'd expect it wouldn't go at market rates lol. We won't get any meat off the corpse however it's split (IMO).

Anyway, that's not an outcome I'd expect to materialise to be fair. Assuming no one invested is either.

Atb

Long and short is I'm investing in them to succeed and I believe they will. If they don't, we lose our capital we've invested.

If they fail I don't care who gets what ; as you and I won't get ****e all. Simples.

However the loan is secured against the companies assets. Therefore Newgen will get the lion share but I'd concur with the view that the process would be managed by an administrator who will have a fee, plus other liabilities will need be likely e.g. taxes etc etc

That said in simple terms on failure NewGen get the assets - (less costs and liabilities). But they get the assets.

It won't fail IMV. If I change my view on this I'll sell.
Nothing indicates this to me ATM.

Atb

F29..

'Mr 250 is a viewpoint (not mine) ' - yes not sure I'm convinced in terms of mr250k long term. I think there is some foundation to the presence of a seller but for how long etc who knows..

Re ' emailed "pawn broker" at the time who were keen to get my shares :-)) ' - how did you know who they were did her pawn them to get the capital for the court case? (1)

Re ' would not say what quantity they had,but MM assumed he was getting them back so no reason to hold ? ' - true guess depends on their respective value and the amount to be raised at the time, with a hefty discount in favour of the broker.

Re ' They say they release shares so as not to affect the sp of a Co. They are nearing the end of their tranche (I believe)' - End of tranche as in all or tranche as in segment? How many tranches you know? (2)

Re 'When we get into gear,the MM (and friends) factor will be irrelevant .I'll be at a bar toasting Arc and they might be behind them ! :-))' - agreed. Can we get going... please

I'm a curious kind of chap. To make it easier just reply using the respective numbers following each question. Let's call it question indexing. That'll make it easier. I will link answers to my post that way :) :)