Member Info for jdj2

Will reluctantly vote yes, but only because the mismanagement of the company means that the "NO" option would possibly lead to bankruptcy. I have been involved in several AIM companies, but this management is by far the worst of a poor lot.

The (only) bright spot is that MTL seem to have a good track record. Time will tell.

Simms, I think Mellon has a little over 25%, so not sure it is possible to get a 75% vote in favour of an alternative offer, even in the unlikely situation of every other shareholder apart from Mellon voting for it. I am very happy to be corrected if that is not the case.

Too late Willowman - he's already been given a seat on to the MTL board.

Yes Simms 45, Calibre were super clear that the door was left open IF CNR wanted to approach them. The question is, now that Mr. Mellon has made his "irrevocable undertaking" to support the MTL offer AND vote against any further offers, will CNR approach Calibre in good faith? I doubt it - after all, Calibre may not (will not) be offering Jim a seat on the board and whatever other sweeteners MTL have offered that we don't know about.

I simply fail to understand how a Chairman of a British listed company can say upfront, before any other potentially better offers have been made, that they will vote against them.

How on earth can that be in the interests of (the rest of us) shareholders? Anyone out there with more knowledge of company law than me have any ideas or explanation of how he can get away with that?

So the directors would vote against any higher offer that benefitted the majority of shareholders (that's all of us who have not been offered a seat on the MTL board). I haven't checked my email yet so maybe there is a juicy offer for me too, in which case I might also be "persuaded" to vote against a higher cash or shares offer, who knows. I'll be waiting by the phone.

Another worrying aspect of this stitch up is that Calibre have clearly left the door open for re-engagement with Conder IF CNR APPROACH THEM.

Since JM has climbed into bed with MTL and his "Irrevocable arrangement" of dubious fiduciary legality, he may not be incline to approach Calibre. That is also a dereliction of his duties as director of CNR. If he does approach Calibre, will he do so in good faith? Or has he been bought by MTL's offer of a seat on their board?

Yes, if it is such a great deal for MTL, it doesn't mean it is a good deal for us.

I agree with Sunjammer that the Directors of CNR (if they vote against a higher offer, should it materialise) would appear to be neglecting their fiduciary duty, which is to look after the interests of shareholders and to get best value for the shareholders of CNR.

We've been lied to for 2 years. Sold down the river today. Disgusted with the board's interpretation of "realising shareholder value".

Will vote against and d*** the consequences.

Unlikely we would see any CVR. Zero. MTL are not obliged to increase the size of reserves, indeed why bother? First, they will need all their cash and a raise/loan to develop the mine. Second, why spend millions on exploration when there is more than enough gold to keep mining for a few years. Mine-building will be at the top of their agenda, not exploration.

The CVR is nothing more than an attempt to make the offer look like 44p instead of 33p. Don't be taken in.

I see there are a lot of MTL shareholders here since Sunday, you're welcome BTW. But please don't try to sell MTL the company to us. Yes it looks well run and dynamic, God knows we have missed that, but we also know that this is the deal of the century for MTL, at 33p.

You are quite correct - it doesn't add up.

We are being taken for mugs!

I seriously hope not, but since the 11p CVR is purely hypothetical and may very well not be (indeed, probably will not) be available to CNR shareholders you are on to something nasty. I suspected that this was a 33p offer, not a 44p offer and while that value should increase with a good mine development plan and subsequent increase in MTL's share price, nothing is guaranteed. I would like 8 MTL shares and no CVR, but ideally would prefer Calibre shares or Chinese cash.

Agree Electric Lion. Will add my measly 300k to your chunky holding and vote against. We may shoot ourselves in the foot, but can't see we'll end up worse off in the long run. Plus, I object to being, in the words of Slim, cucumbered.

Except it is not 44p. It isn't even 33p. It is 4 shares in MTL at whatever price they are on the settlement date (they are down 6% today) plus a possible share in future discoveries over a long period into the future, on terms to suit MTL and with a maximum of 11p. half of us will be dead before seeing so much as 1p of that possible 11p.

But as I read the release, JM will vote against any deal that arrives after 1700 on Wednesday.

I find that hard to reconcile with his duty to protect shareholder value . especially if a better offer comes in before the shareholder vote or 29th December.

They'll have to be quick. Jim has put his seal of approval and 26% of the company in their favour, so unless a better deal arrives in less than 2 days, we're toast.

Of course he will be on the MTL board.

Not much, I think that sums up what seems to be a stitch-up between 2 billionaires pretty well.

"Cahoots"?

You are too polite.

The offer as it stands will definitely not be getting my vote. It is below my average. I am very disappointed that JM has put his weight behind it after more than 2 years of promising to wait for "full value".

Trouble is, with his large %, nearly every other shareholder will need to vote against it to stop it.

Very strange - when MC and JM insisted that they were waiting for the true value of the assets to be realised - despite low ball non-binding offers - I did NOT expect that they would consider 33p to be a true value. I hope I am wrong, but this is looking like a stitch up.

Of course Calibre would say that. This is playing hardball, they are not going to show their hand and say they really, really want the next door prospect because it looks great!