Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Entirely separate. And the investors don't bring the criminal proceedings, the Government (Crown) does. Somewhat out of our control. Plus an out of Court Settlement would be without prejudice, so wouldnt help the criminal proceedings in any way.
"No matter what anybody ever tells you about china, russia, Mexico etc......the 2 most corrupt countries in the world are the US and the UK by far"
Agreeable the two biggest tax heavens too. But rolled out in such a sophisticated way that many either cannot understand it or never see it. Which is ironic really as the US lead the attack on tax evasion via the FATCA rules, only to then becomes a country that so many individuals can use to avoid their domestic reporting (and due tax disclosure) outside of the USA.
If you were in the region 22 years ago and knew why you here!!! you are the problem (contributed to it apparently) and reason the new generation are moving you to the side lines. Nice admission.
Lack of global commercial awareness. Your statement is no different to : "they support the other football team, we should fight them " . I doubt there's any means to change your mind about the system and small island you know nothing about. Let the geographical witch hunt continue. Meanwhile the uk has some of the world's most complex and effective legislation available to minimize taxation for foreign investment. Wake up.
Hell. Got to stop bashing the Cayman Islands. It's well regulated and has some of the most up standing professions in their field. There's more issues and loop holes closer to home than in cayman.
Don't think it's dishonest at all. Rather practical. Gag orders / agreements are common place. flagging a possible outcome (arguably highly likely based on various assumptions) so that the various posters believing that the group will secure an outcome for them personally are aware. Just because they sent a message to a email account doesn't mean you are included "legally" in any action against the company. There's a lot of confusion here on due process, the realities of legal disputes and compromise agreements. Of course there are alternative outcomes overall but I wasn't commenting on them.
Precisely. That's how the company will handle the matter initially, and absolutely what counsel would suggest as a first step to close off the issue. (If they claim presented has any merit) The offer made without prejudice will be generous enough to compensate and further encourage them to cease all activities via an NDA. Then all of sudden the closed group will disappear.
Shareholders can't change BOD decisions. Remove directors yes. Which can be highly influential. But in practice hate to do.
If the shareholder group is indeed real and doing all they have said at someone their lawyers will formally petition a class action and invite shareholders to apply to be included in that legal process. At which stage all correspondence about the matter will come from the lawyers rather than the closed group. Until that happens the closed group are acting independently. In all likelihood and if the group has teeth the company would enter an agreement with them cease activities and compensate them, and only them or the leader. It's that simple. Essentially a deal to go away, after which you'll ever hear from the group again. The lawyers who have been engaged will be acting for particular people not unknown shareholders. I highlight this because I see many posts of people 'trusting' their interests are being represented. Which they are not sadly. And also can we stop bashing the Cayman Islands :)
Just want to bring this one to the top of the list...
I wish you were right Richard. But the idea that the "SP value doesn't matter" narrative is simply incorrect. That statement has been kicked around this board a lot, and it always confused me. The SP value is what the market has decided the company is worth, that is an important metric. It matters very much, especially to the proposed buyers. And it will be blended into the advanced discussions, if such things are truly in play. Which I hope they are. As I have said, hoping this will work out, and I believe the sale will go ahead, but we may need a bit of a reality check. The days of treasure island, rums all round, and fantasy etc are well behind us. Must focus on the reality and the positives ahead.
Unfortunately it's very much like SXX, at a high level. We now have a operating deadline, in the absence of any other funding. That materially impacts the negotiating table and any offer that may come. As mentioned, it's the commercial fact pattern I am referring to, not the individual aspects of the company. Mark my words, I think a sale will come, but around the 5-7pm value at best.
A sale could very well happen still. That is the likely outcome, but sadly at this stage the sale price will be much lower than anyone ever wanted to wished for. Whilst the particular facts are different, the high level fact pattern reminders me of SXX Sirius. A offer will likely come in Q1, and we will need to take it or go out of business. The offer price will reflect this. In fact the share price current was around that of SXX before the 5.5P offer was accepted. Still money to be paid for some, but many maybe be hurt (much like the SXX shareholders). This had so much potential but the unexpected war really damage this company. Historically any Russian nexus had a high risk element, this time that high risk materalized in an unexpected fashion. That said, there is still hope and it's not over, until it is over...
Who is money laundering? Or where is the risk of money laundering?
Interesting you refer to yourself as a Lawyer rather than the more appropriate Solicitor or Barrister which is appropriate designation in the UK (or should I say England and Wales). For my sins I am a solicitor, and as it happens I have undertaken winding up petitions for clients and issued statutory demands etc. Sometimes they have plenty of funds, but just don't want to pay (for so many reasons, sometimes just cash flow issues- but that's not my problem), the old duck and dive. Clients, are just clients. It's a business relationship administered under a contract. You sue when you need sue, if the client has little future value to you. I would disagree that "lawyers" will do anything to try and avoid it. By our nature are litigious and I would rather be known as tough stuff who gets paid, rather than a walk over who let's his clients run all over him/her and the Firm's good name. But in any event, it will all come out in the wash .
Too many messages to ready today. I wouldnt worry too much about the winding up petition, it's a common tactic deployed by a creditor to tighten the screws on a debtor. The chances are that EUA was disputing the invoice, both parties got into a long disagreement, couldnt land in the middle in terms of settlement, and the creditor (law firm) issued the notice to put EUA's feet to the fire. It happens all the time, and doesn't mean the creditor cannot pay, more likley that they didnt want to for some reason (contract/service/quality dispute).
Has anyone seen a price prediction for SYME for 1+, 2+, 3+ years? There is someone commenting in another chat group that the financial times predicts GBP 16.50 (appx), which seems utterly nuts. Cannot find anything online to validate.
Not sure you wound enjoy Cayman, prices here have rocketed post COVID. One red pepper costs about GBP 2.00. Curry take away for two, about GBP 80.
Just logged in! Too many posts to review, but seen reference to a new ACF price range/rteport. Does anyone have the link ? Many thanks
I recall reading somewhere that the AIM failure rate is around 90%, shockingly high. Many people invest in AIM due to the volatility. Personally wouldn't put all my money into AIM, but it has a place in a diversified portfolio. Good luck!