Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
JM-K here. I did not know what was coming. It's just an answer. Your guess is just an uninformed guess.
The Company put out a RNS saying they had issued the shares to me. They mentioned to number of shares issued and the total amount of shares in issue. It is possible to calculate the percentage held without too much difficulty!
JMK here. I have informed the Company of my holding. I had zero transactions(buy or sale) before I got my shares recently from the Company. I have sold no shares since receiving the 4% stake.
Latino, I have not seen the report so can't comment. Where/if it refers to periods of time whilst I was a director I will not be allowed to comment for obvious reasons. However various resolutions were put to shareholders where Peterhouse Corp Fin were the subject of those resolutions. I believe that shareholders voted against these resolutions so it is a truism that Shareholders were aware of the subject matters and shareholders voted as they sought fit. Therefore it may appear that shareholders were not misled in those circumstances. Peterhouse Corp Fin were brokers to the Company and as such are under a duty of care to act appropriately. Where Peterhouse Corp Fin act on their own behalf, so long as it is not to the detriment of their clients, it is of no business to anyone else. I hope that I am on good personal terms with the chaps at Peterhouse. I have spoken with and had meetings with them since my departure. I have had no dealings of any sort with Beaumont Cornish since my departure. jmk
Hmmmmmmmm, You can be as rude as you wish to me. You hide behind a cloak of invisibility. Any person can make assertions without any caveats or real research. It is all part of the workings of a market. Many BODs ignore unhelpful or persistent destructive criticisms from shareholders. This may alienate these troubled shareholders. However I suggest that if any shareholder really wants to help a company then engage with the BOD, as an insider.
Looks like I owe him a tenner!!
I know Andrew and Sergii will be working hard looking at RTO opinions. The fact that the NOMAD has resigned will put all the BOD's good work at risk. Finding a replacement NOMAD who can move quickly is a key task. Finalising the RTO opinions are complicated by this major uncertainty. Why announce a RTO when the Company may be delisted by the NOMAD's actions within a few weeks.............it is tricky. However I trust Andrew and Sergii will do all they can for a successful conclusion.
In my experience the NOMAD is in paid in advance not in arrears.
The Board of NYO I am sure are looking at their options. Any RTO discussions I guess are fairly advanced by now and as such would need to be announced shortly to avoid delisting. It will be these discussions that the new NOMAD and broker will look at carefully before accepting appointments. Raising a little cash will help the company I am sure but the key here is to let shareholders know what the plans are, at the appropriate time. No point in raising cash if a delisting is coming!!! It would be great if the RTO plans announced, before the new NOMAD and Broker are announced,along with a suggested timetable. Normally such micro forward looking statements are avoided but at this point it may be more appropriate.
JMK here. News reaches me here in Spain on my holidays a little slower than normal. I can confirm that I have informed the Company of my shareholding and they have RNS the issuance of my shares. I also confirm that shares were received today. If/When I sell or buy any shares I will inform the Company accordingly. It is for the Company to RNS anything material to shareholders. For the sake of clarity I have not sold any shares in Nyota. I do not need to confirm this but I wish to retain a good relationship with other shareholders. The loss of Peterhouse Corp Fin was not a surprise given the way the shareholders voted strongly against their various resolutions at the EGM. They could have behaved far worse but have resigned with dignity and given appropriate timing for the Board to find a replacement. For that the Company and its shareholders should be thankful, as I am. Replacing a NOMAD is much more of an issue. NOMADs work for themselves and not the companies that pay their bills. NOMADs do not report to shareholders and as such are often seen to be problem rather than a help. Any replacement NOMAD will speak to the current NOMAD who may or may not know much about what a company is planning. Indeed a NOMAD wanting to cause trouble could say all sorts of things to potential new NOMADs with the intention of killing a company and there is little prospect of shareholders finding out what was said or taking any necessary remedial action through the courts or via AIM. I suspect that BC have been talking to the Board for a few days before the RNS so the Board may have already started the search for another NOMAD. A replacement broker can be found quickly after a replacement NOMAD is found. The due diligence that any new NOMAD requires is generally excessive and takes far too long for most companies but it is a necessary evil. I hope that a replacement NOMAD can be found before BC's departure.
I informed the Company before they issued the RNS and again this morning of my interest. Shares may have been issued but they have not yet been received. They have chosen not to announce the percentage held, but did announce the number of shares , etc so people could work out the percentage held.
jm-k at Hotmail co uk
Jarv55 Thank you for the kind invitation. Social media, like Twitter, is fine for young thrusting blades but not for tech dinosaurs like me. I am happy on emails and phone which you can reach me on most of the time.
Jarv 55 Thanks for your message. The Aussie tax losses can be utilised within Australia to specific types of projects. These can't be "sold" but may be monetorised via a restructuring and sale of an Australian company. Any acquirer will need to get the acquisition right to qualify for Aussie tax relief. It is a long and complex process but doable. The listing is not necessary for utilisation of tax losses. However a listing may have been helpful in attracting potential acquirers of the tax losses. I do not believe that shares have been issued to me yet. I wrote to Andrew yesterday and he has not replied yet. Once shares have been issued to me I will make the appropriate declaration to NYO and they will make the appropriate announcement.
What's next for NYO is rather uncertain at present. Whilst shareholders just want to get moving forward there is still the "old stuff" to sort out. PeterHouse Corp Fin may have had their fees not paid in stock but they will want paying in cash I assume. That and similar items just need putting to bed. The EGM notice and the EGM results have been disclosed to shareholders. These are very legalistic and I guess that shareholders only really want to know the general plans for the immediate future. I spoke with Sergii earlier and he appears to be very focused on moving forward and updating shareholders. It is clear that BigDish needs resolving given that whilst it is in limbo then any RTO projects are unlikely to be keen on NYO. NYO is an Aussie company with an Aussie listing and Aussie tax losses. Without the ASX listing it will not appeal so much to Aussie projects. Thus I suspect projects in more AIM "centric" locations are likely. It would be silly to look at exploration projects given that the Italian assets were disposed of. Thus growth projects in the more racy sectors would be my guess.....tech, or "green" projects. I am certain that the directors and broker will have had many such discussions over the last few weeks and that these will be progressed over the next few weeks.
JMK here. Many thanks for those who voted in my favour at the EGM. It is much appreciated.
I am not sure that I can help much as I am not a lawyer. However these are my opinions. If res 1 (appointment of director), Res 2 Consolidation of shares and Res 10 ASX delist are approved/not approved it will make very little difference to the running of the Company. Res 9 payment to me (obvious conflict!) and Res 7 payment to Peterhouse Corp Fin for fees a year in advance both in shares at 0.02p if not approved then the Company may be forced to pay these in cash. Of course if there is no cash available any creditor may avail themselves of the courts to enforce payment. Res 5 issuance of warrants to Peterhouse Corp Fin at 0.02p......if not approved then it may be up to the Company to come to an arrangement with the broker. Res 8 approve prior issue of shares and Res 6 Issue up to £300k of new shares. If not approved it restricts what the directors can do and the Company will be compromised. Res 3 Issue 187mill shares to Peterhouse Corp Fin and Res 4 convert BigDish loan into 1 bill shares at 0.02p have been made dependent on each other by the directors(not me). It will be interesting if shareholders vote to approve one and not the other. Why the directors linked these is unknown to me . However assuming both are voted against by shareholders then the Bigdish loan is still outstanding and the Company will have to negotiate with BigDish to see what can be done. If Peterhouse Corp Fin are not issued shares then the Company does not raise cash to pay its bills. Once the votes are known then there will be some clarity. Shareholders' votes against the directors recommendations will tell the Company what it should not do going forward. However what the Company can do going forward may require another EGM if these resolutions are not approved. A subsequent EGM may also include other funding and RTO resolutions. I am certain that the directors and Peterhouse Corp Fin will have discussed the potential outcomes of the EGM and will have various ideas and strategies in mind. It is also true that shareholders could call another EGM if they so wished and had the requisite number of shares in the Articles of Association to do so.
Kingroy, Alas I do not own any shares in Nyota so I will not be voting. I was a non exec director and independent. That independence I believe is very important and as such I take the view that I provided professional services to the benefit of the Company , its shareholders, its creditors, other stakeholders etc and should not be aligned wholly to shareholders. I never intended to be paid in shares whilst I was a director. If you own/control over 3% of the Company then please ensure that all TR1s and similar disclosures are made known to the Company. If you are in any doubt then I suggest you contact the Company and I am certain that they will try to help. Shareholders have been given a number of resolutions to vote upon. These are the first step in moving the Company forward. The direction and speed of movement will be dictated by the relevant votes. The BOD and advisors will heed the results and I suggest may have a number of alternative strategies to suggest to shareholders after the EGM vote becomes known. At such a point it may be sensible for the BOD and its advisers to speak with shareholders, and other interested parties, to see what strategies/potential RTOs are available. If the shareholders are not satisfied then they may like to call another EGM to consider matters that they wish the shareholders to vote upon.
The EGM notice is very detailed on all the resolutions. It is not a riveting read but in relation to my own proposed payment it is for the shareholders to decide whether or not I am paid for my past services at 0.02 in shares. I was not paid for 9 months and it will be over a month since I left at the time of the EGM. Of course if shareholders vote against any resolution then directors have to honour those wishes. In my case if I am not paid in shares then I guess that I would then ask for payment in cash. Of course if any outstandings remain unpaid then the creditors may avail themselves of relevant legislation to enforce their legal rights/claims. Of course this is my understanding but I am not a lawyer so may be wholly mistaken......it would not be the first time!