Member Info for johnpwh

Foz
Just have to hope M&G vote against. With the GF shares excluded from the vote I calculated that M&G hold over 19% of the so called scheme shares that 'will count'. So a big bonus if they vote the way we want. But a huge hurdle if they don't

tomcat
Don't agree with your interpretation of the relevant paragraph for the reasons I gave in my posts of the 19th. I hope you are right believe me. Its hard to decide and I have read it many times but I think they need 50.1% of the non GF votss cast, the 75% being the minimum turnout amongst the non GF shareholdings (whichever way they vote) in order that the vote is valid.

Hi Mr C
Allot was my opinion, and I could be wrong, but was an interpretation of the wording of 6th May RNS
Posts were 19th June at around 21.00pm

i don't believe that is correct Mr C. Can I refer you to a whole load of discussion on (I think) last Sunday

I will be. I suspect we may all be disappointed if we thank it is going to be interesting - I imagine we will all be shouting at our laptops

Stranger
What happens when the exploration is unsuccessful and cant be sold into the JV? I assume the costs are swallowed by AAU so is a total loss.
Further, using your example, if $0.5 million is spent on a prospect then while Ariana gets $1.5 million revenue up front then that $1.5m comes from the JV - of which AAU is a 23.5% member. So $0.325m of the $1.5m comes from AAU itself!
Every time i see these good results I rue the day that our 50% share of Red Rabbit became 23.5%. If that hadn't happened I believe we could have had a company paying a regular dividend, not just a single one off which is not something many want.

Agree Mr C
There is no question of the GF proposal being discussed at the AGM, that has been made plainm so whether the attendees are GF friendly is irrelevant

This has already been mentioned several times today, but I think that it will be beneficial for Dee's campaign if as many of us as possible post protest votes against the majority of resolutions at the AGM. The process only took me 10 minutes or so with iWeb. I would encourage others to do the same to show the Directors that we do intend to make our feelings felt, so it will help the campaign

If Vanadium prices are up 10% then logically the margin increase, hence profit, is > 10% since many costs are essentially fixed.
I think the SP performance has reached a point where even those that think it is well underpriced are hesitating in case it continues to lower. People are sitting on the sidelines because it isn't reacting positively to good news

Foz
So young......so cynical.....I'm sure they wouldn't ever think of doing that.....

....before the board of AAU realise that they are not attracting shareholders (existing or potential) any more?

Hi Foz
i assume that the M&G shares are held in the Recovery Fund? That used to be pretty much the best fund out but it got a bit big and inflexible so became a bit of a joke more recently (I haven't checked to see if it is better these days tbh). Not quite a Woodford magnitude fall from grace but similar.
Have just been web chatting to iWeb and have lodged my AGM votes. Its just a protest vote really as GFs votes will be admitted for the AGM resolutions and Im sure will support the Boards recommendations So immediately there is 28.8% of the shares voting the resolutions through including re-electing the Board Members

Foz,
The Board of BCN have stitched up its shareholders at every turn. It is blindingly obvious that Secker & co are going to approve the deal at 67.5p. And I cannot see that the the bid will exceed 67.5p because that is the figure GF are presenting its own shareholders on 28th.
When were you last in a situation when a deal endorsed by the Board of the target company was defeated?
As others have pointed out the tiny net value of GFs bid is made even smaller by the ZNWD holding.
You say that you are surprised that BP etc don't have a go at BCN with their loose change but how can they? Where as the GF shares are omitted from the share count for the 'proposed offer', if anyone else offered the GF votes would be counted - effectively blocking any other interest with an immediate 28.8% voted against.
The board are determined that this deal will go through irrespective of what is in the shareholders interest. I wont surmise why as my feelings are libellous. What is driving Secker and the rest of this board?
I'm sorry but despite our opposition I think this is a done deal at 67.5p, and to add insult we will even be forced to wait for a protracted period for that . Because of that probable delay I doubt the SP will stagger much above 60-61p even when the offer is confirmed.
This is a sad situation for not just BCN but for anyone in the AIM casino.

Nor me, I'm a mathematician!
Worrying though, the 75% now reads to me like a requirement to make the vote valid, ie a decent turnout - the 75% would just be a count of votes whether they be for or against.
Once that hurdles is passed then the bid succeeds if over 50% of the votes support it (I am interpreting majority as simple majority).
Please tell me I'm wrong.
Enough for one night I think. Another bottle of Oakham Citra is calling from the fridge. Night all

However reading that again I'm thinking it might be more convoluted than that.
I'm happy that scheme shareholders exclude GFs shares but the 'majority of Scheme Shareholders present and voting (in person or by proxy) representing 75 per cent or more of the scheme shares' is a little troubling.
I'll go and lie down in a dark room and think about that, but it looks like it means that the bid succeeds if over 50% vote in favour PROVIDED votes are received in respect of an excess of 75% of Scheme shares.
Anyone else got an interpretation?

Hi Jam, the extracts are:
....approval by a majority of Scheme Shareholders present and voting (in person or by proxy) representing 75 per cent. or more in the value of the Scheme Shares held by such Scheme Shareholders
Where:
Scheme shareholder are defined as ..... a holder of Scheme Shares as appearing in the register of Bacanora at the Scheme Record Time and
Scheme shares are defined as ..... the Bacanora Shares: (i) in issue at the date of the Scheme Document; (ii) issued after the date of the Scheme Document but before the Voting Record Time; and (iii) (if any) issued at or after the Voting Record Time and before the Scheme Record Time on terms that the original or any subsequent holders shall be, or shall have agreed in writing by such time to be, bound by the Scheme, in each case, excluding any Excluded Shares and
Excluded shares are defined as ..... any Bacanora Shares beneficially owned by Ganfeng or any parent or subsidiary undertaking (as defined in the Companies Act) of Ganfeng and (ii) any Bacanora Shares held in treasury by Bacanora
.

If I was a cynic (which of course I'm not......) I'd think that Secker and the rest of the board thought they'd be safe from the sort of scrutiny that the Morrisons board would have come under if they had behaved as appallingly as the BCN board has.
To an extent the SaveBCN campaign has disproved that.
One thing I took from the podcast is that Secker has implied he will come onto that forum once the bid is confirmed. I'll bet you a pound to a penny that he doesn't, because he would fear that sort of fact based questioning..

Good point, so that means another 2% of the 384m shares cease to be Scheme Shares? Difference is fairly marginal but means even fewer 'no' shares are needed.
Thanks Tom

I had no paint to watch dry so further to my earlier ramblings I thought Id go through the RNSs again.
Before the latest pre-emptive giveaway to GF 330811568 shares were in issue. The pre-emptive agreement gave 53,333,333 more shares to GF taking the total shares in issue to 384,144,901. GF then had a total of 110,933,697 shares, so 111m/384m = 28.88% which is the figure we all know (but don't love).
On 7th May M&G made an RNS stating they had 52,528,941 shares, which was 15.87% of 330811568 shares. After the new shares issued to GF (admitted 26th May) the M&G holding is now 52.5m/384m = 13.67%, lower than 17% HOWEVER
My understanding from 6th May RNS is that the bid has to surpass 75% of SCHEME Shares, I interpret Scheme Shares as basically shares in issue less any held in BCN treasury (I assume none) less any shares held by GF and any odd bods associated with them.
So the number of 'non GF' Scheme Shares is 384,144,901 - 110,933,697 = 273211204. Hence I think then that acceptance has to be received by 75% of those 273211204 shares. By my calc M&G have 52.5m of those Scheme Shares or 19.22%, which is a fair way towards the required 25% of Scheme shares needed for opposition.
So a positive vote has to be received in respect of 204908403 shares. In other words to defeat the bid 68,302,801 'No' votes must be received, or just 17.7% of the total shares in issue. Given M&G have 52.5m shares then, assuming they can be supported to oppose, we need to generate a further 15773860 'No' votes.
That's my thoughts anyway, feel free to point out any errors in my ramblings (but I don't read filtered people!)

Just listening to the Podcast. Well done Dee. Do M&G have 17%, I thought it was just over 13% given the most recent increase in GF to 28.8% via the issue of new shares?
Anyway.
The other guys seemed convinced. The barrier I can see is that no new buyer wants to push the SP any closer to 67.5p because it is perceived that the bid could well be successful so why takes risks at near or especially over 67.5p?
The voting necessary for the deal to go through seemed uncertain in the podcast, I need to look up the 6h May RNS which (unless subsequently amended) seemed reasonably clear on the voting requirement