Member Info for Harrogate4

Exactly correct.

MattyBoy1965 ------------Dear Sirs,

I am a Share Holder in Shanta Gold Ltd and, in common with most Shareholders, would like to express my dismay at the inept way that the above RCA voting procedures have been handled by Shanta Gold.

Since the RCA was imposed in late December 2023, Shareholders have had almost zero communication from the Shanta BOD or the Nominated Advisor. On 29th February 2024 Shanta RNS’d a Confirmation of Adjournment note recommending that Shareholders should “Take no action at this time” regarding voting. Most Shareholders had already voted to reject the RCA proposals because they recognized it for what it clearly was, ie an attempt to buy the Company on the cheap. The 13.5 pence per share offer from Shanta is considered to be derisory by nearly all Shareholders who have now learned at this late stage (from their brokers) that the first vote didn’t count and they will have to vote again.

The whole thing is a complete and utter shambles and a disgrace.

I am inviting the Court to carefully consider whether any of the above shenanigans constitute Fraud as defined in the Fraud (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2008. On the face of it, Section 4(1)(a) which deals with abuse of position by the company in which they are expected to safeguard or not act against the financial interests of others ( Shareholders for example) would seem to be relevant here. In addition under Section 4(2) the company may be regarded to have abused its position through an act of omission rather than an act ( such as not properly communicating with Shareholders regarding voting procedures).

Shanta shareholders also have many other concerns regarding Shanta Gold’s compliance with AIM Rules particularly Rules 10, 11 and 26 and these will be put to Aim Regulation at the London Stock Exchange as I realise such matters may be outside of the purview of the Guernsey Court.

Thank you in anticipation of your consideration of these matters which are of great concern to Shanta Gold shareholders.

NoelShempsky ---- I think the best answer to this is "not completely but as near as dammit"

It's similar to comparing UK Law to law in the Irish republic where they often just copy the UK legislation and maybe alter the position of a comma or two, stick a Harp at the top to represent Ireland and call it Irish law.

And I meant to add, vote NO again of course just to be sure.

NoelShemsky's helpful recent postings on what legally constitutes Fraud may be useful to board members, for whom the situation is not hearsay in that they have now been directly approached by their brokers and invited to vote again for something they thought they had already voted for. No intervening explanations have been received from Shanta, BOD or Noninated Advisor.

I am contacting both Aim regulation and the Guernsey Court ( court.reception@gov.gg) to complain citing Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Fraud Act 2006 which ( as Noel has pointed out) deal with duties of persons who have safeguarding duties to not act against the financial interest of others ( SHs for example), or omit to properly inform SHs as to voting procedures for example.

I would strongly suggest others also air their complaints about this shabby episode with the court as it's volume of complaints that counts. Time is running out.

Hounddog10 ------Similarly to kipperfoot, I have this morning received an email from Interactive inviting me to vote again in this RCA debacle. I have already voted (No of course) for my 514,868 shares on26th Jan 2024.

Before I complain yet again to both Aim regulation and the Guernsey Court about the confusion ( deliberate in my view) being caused, can you please give me your view as to whether I need to vote again?

Thanks.

G_G_G ------agree with you and hope you are complaining to the Guernsey Court.

The e mail address of the Court is: court.reception@gov.gg. You can just cut and paste your view and send it to them. Easy and takes about 30 seconds.

Gullhungry1 -----Yes that reminds me, Eric's shyte eating grin is another thing that may be worth complaining about to aim regulation. I hadn't thought of that.

Rogerk ---- Yes I agree with your view on other interests, and, If I recall correctly, both Shandong and Yintai have had a close look at Shanta earlier and may well be considering putting their cards on the table in the final playoff.

Walkley -----"Do think a statement from the board about their intentions is overdue."

It was due a long time ago but don't hold your breath on that one.

These people are shysters and don't do communication.

Tornadotony ----- "If they wrote to the Court with their examples of harm to them the position of Saturn would come under more scrutiny."

Yes, and if you want to write to the Court the address is:

Guernsey Royal Court,

The Royal Court House,

St James Street,

Guernsey GY1 2NZ

and the telephone number is +44 1481 225277

Given time is short, and UK Royal Mail is no longer reliable, I would think e mail would be best to use which also gives proof of being sent ( which is important considering the sort of crooks we seem to be dealing with).

The e mail address of the Court is: court.reception@gov.gg

1755 "Law forces them to be silent about Patel takeover but also their duty is to inform shareholders as usual and in time about mine activity."

So complain about it to:

aimregulation@londonstockexchange.com

as we have all agreed to do.

Yes, I think I can see a Patel or two desperately struggling to push the Shanta SP back below 13.5 pence ( which today has been hit 4 times so far) but they seem to be running out of energy.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Au now $ 2156

Mickeye ----send your complaint off to:

aimregulation@londonstockexchange.com

G_G_G ----Just to confirm, have now sent my ( additional) complaint to Aim regulation.

As I have said before, it's the volume of complaints that matter when dealing with these people, and if they get a whole lot of complaints about something then, just sometimes, they think they had better try and deal with it. Isolated complaints are often just ignored.

So the more complaints the better is my view.

G-G-G I'm with you on that and will get my complaint off to Aim regulation ASAP. This is getting more crooked by the day.

ICB888 "Do your own research to check out if I am on the right lines as to what could happen."

Do you by any chance have any further and better particulars ( such as the Company name) where such a situation as you describe has actually played out? Thanks.

nick1965 and ****goestheeasal -----the first 4 paras of ceed's posting today at 09.50 describes what he is concerned about, and you can use that information to base your complaint on. you don't need to worry about it all being correct legal jargon etc, the important thing is just to do it. the legal bit that ceed refers to is the 2nd para of rule 10 of the aim rules for companies 2023 which deals with principles of disclosure and is as he describes it in his post. it's always worth mentioning the rule number in the complaint. mostly, aim regulation seems to do bugger all, but complaining helps to convey to them that share holders, in increasing numbers, think shanta are a bunch of shysters.

CeeD -----the complaint address is -- aimregulation@londonstockexchange.com

the more that complain the better, it helps to get Shanta the bad reputation it now deserves.