Member Info for Jiving

Mitch my thinking is essentially the Takeover Code is doing its job and protecting other shareholders (ie us), in the event that after 16 June Glencore does a deal with a third party, without ZIOC management agreement. If a purchaser buys over 30% of Glencore's 48% they have to make an offer to all shareholders of ZIOC. Or reach an agreed bid with ZIOC management that is approved by at least 75% of shareholders. Either way we are protected, provided we remain a listed company; and Elphick/AT have also included a clause effectively stopping Glencore using its 48% to pass a de-listing resolution.

The distribution agreement with Glencore allows for that to be changed into a Royalty arrangement if ownership of the mine holding company becomes majority owned by a third party. So a purchaser would then assume control of the distribution in return for a royalty payment to Glencore (in past deals = approx 1.5%), so in the overall context that should not be a deal breaking issue. If Glencore are not flexible enough to get a deal done they get no value for either their shares or their offtake/royalty agreement!

Yes its frustrating Moneyman. Shareholders were clearly owed a more detailed explanation of what management 'hoped' to achieve with the re-structuring. Necessarily this would have been theoretical, nobody expects names & details. I am hoping 16 June when Glencore's 6 month share lockup ends, might be a catalyst for action. After that date Glencore can go it alone & independently seek to realise maximum value for their ZIOC shares (& their marketing agreement).

So I pose the question, what happens if Glencore sell their 48% to a third party? I have just had a look at the current Takeover Code & from what I can see any sale of over 30% to a third party necessitates that party making a full Offer for 100% of the ZIOC shares. Then all shareholders have a vote on the Offer & they need 90% to secure 'complete' control & 'squeeze out' recalcitrant minority shareholders. Of course other bidders could emerge with competing offers.

But there is an intriguing alternative for a third party - if they secure the agreement of 75% of shareholders (by number of shares & then a majority of shareholders at the meeting - ie a dual requirement) they can implement a 'Scheme of Arrangement' that means in practice (subject to court agreement & resolutions etc) a takeover offer then becomes binding on 100% of shareholders. Glencore & Elphick have just under 62% between them, Keith Everitt just under 3%, so to get to 75% they would need some other major holders to join with them (I believe some of the original backers may retain holdings under 3%).

Please note I am not an expert on the nuances of UK takeovers, just trying to get an idea what the implications of Glencore being free to sell their shares after 16 June might be.

NFTs the identity of the last investor is a non-issue as far as NFX is concerned, as we go into the crucial licensing talks after all the years of testing - this is what the company is about & what 99% of sane shareholders are focussed on.

But you should do as Soup suggested & raise it in the Q & A, my hunch is they requested anonymity & structured their holding to be legally below the reporting threshold. But as previously explained: in the UK the entire onus of reporting a holding above a notifiable threshold lies with the shareholder not the company/issuer.

NFTs the only bizarrely 'loaded agenda driven questions' are coming from you. A 180 degree turnaround from your sentiments of only 2 months ago! So likely you have finally sold out & overall realised a significant loss (from your days as Aim4Utopia & Offshore, when I remember your proclamation of near millionaire status from your holding). Of course every LTH is in the same situation - but they have the dignity of not resorting to this petty, pitiful bipolar behaviour of turning from an obsessive unhinged NFX promoter, to an obsessive unhinged NFX destroyer in less than 2 months.

You are creating a fictitious 'duty' for a BOD to fulfil, the regulator is absolutely clear on the issue: it is the shareholders duty to report their holding to the issuer & the market - literally spelt out for you in the quote from the FCA Handbook below. That is the case whether the shareholder is an institution or an individual like Dan. Of course a company cannot be responsible - how are they to know how many accounts a shareholder has & how would they independently verify the information - the legal/regulatory onus necessarily has to be on the reporting shareholder.

You are getting very desperate to find something negative, hence this nit-picking nonsense. What next, they 'wastefully' used 6 more paperclips in 2022 than 2021?

It is not NFX's role to report a shareholder's position, but the shareholder themselves. Here is the relevant section from the FCA Handbook:

"Direct and indirect shareholders, unless otherwise exempt, must notify the issuer

and us of their holdings in shares with voting rights attached if the percentage of the

shareholder’s voting rights reaches, exceeds or falls below a notifiable threshold."

It’s also a sad comment on NFTs twisted morality. Here is a biotech company working to produce improved drugs to deal with two horrific diseases - lung fibrosis & cancer. Why on earth would a person try to undermine & de-ramp a company, just when it is going to approach major JV partners, after a lengthy & frustrating process for all concerned. A JV that could potentially take those drugs to market & if successful in the trials/regulatory process, could literally dramatically save 10,000s - possibly 100,000s - of peoples lives around the world every year. Go de-ramp a tobacco company NFTs.

Think you have nailed NFTs motivation & mindset Whimax.

Playing your silly game again Alb1. Last time you did this on ZIOC, it ended up 5x the price.

And the sale by Vale of a 10% stake for circa $2.5b releases a very handy chunk of capital for new projects, perhaps in conjunction with the stake purchaser or related entities?

News from over a year ago NFTs, so what. Not relevant to anything material affecting NFX now or going forward. You seem to have become a conspiracy theorist desperately seeking out material & coming up with non-events.

Absolutely Extrader, some of the parties are already acting in JV/consortiums on long term projects. Why not one more, if the mutual trust/benefit is there?

I note Glencore are already getting into the party, with an offtake agreement with this Saudi mining company AMAK. Given Glencore are 'long term greedy' when it comes to developing profitable relationships with global players, to be working alongside Saudi/UAE on a major project would likely fit in well with that approach. https://www.argaam.com/en/article/articledetail/id/1614537

Absolutely Transhaven, suddenly this clown the 'Earl' is the dominant poster on the board today with his repetitive drivel - nuts.

Could we be heading for a 3-party consortium I wonder? ZIOC provides the mine; Saudi/UAE provide the finance/infrastructure; and Vale act as developer/operator?

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”

― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Brel I think that should read: "The 1000 number is the company signalling how far they are willing to go to kill .....the stock.."

Vale expanding production in Brazil doesn't satisfy any Saudi/UAE desire to directly own their own resources. The remit of the Saudi fund seems to be to JV in actual giant mines in certain strategic sectors like iron ore, not simply to say buy stakes in the stockmarket in existing listed companies like Vale or BHP. Saudi & the Gulf states already have a plethora of existing SWF & other giant investment funds that do that.

£259,259 of cash and cash equivalents at 31 March 2023

Wont find be arguing with any of your points FFX. We are pretty much on the same page, but there actually is hope, its not 100% obviously but its not 0% either.

Its a staggering reaction to what is genuine progress. So much harm has been done to this company in the last 3 years, its obviously difficult to repair it with anything but a 'deal'.