Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. Watch the video here.
Jt506
"Blackrock doubled their investment."
The date of that transaction was the 25th Feb.
The sp opened at 682p and closed at 798p on the 25th.
I doubt that Blackrock will be too happy about that trade.
This is nothing to do with punctuation. It is all about what you said, not how you said it.
"the partner (solv gov) does a EIA that it doesnt require..."
"yes the EIA 'request' was from the partner...."
According to you the partner has done an EIA, not simply requested one.
And why is the EIA not required when you clearly stated that AST should have done one years ago?
"thats the whole point...if you read it they didnt do it....read it again...."
I have read it again and you clearly state that they (Geoenergo) did an EIA.
Read it again yourself. I have copied it below for you.
"...EIA from partner who is solvenia gov....as i said before the partner (solv gov) does a EIA that it doesnt require..."
Okay, Oldblue let's take one sound bite at a time.
"as i said before the partner (solv gov) does a EIA that it doesnt require...."
Here's a straightforward question for you.
You are correct that AST's partner Geoenergo is a government run organisation.
But when exactly did they do an EIA?
Oldblue, what you said was clearly contradictory, as well as being mangled and badly punctuated English. Try using full stops, commas, and capital letters at the beginning of a sentence. Also try reading back what you have written before hitting the send button. The golden rule is that a sentence must make sense. Your offerings fail on all counts.
Anyway what are you still doing here?
You sold out a few weeks back and said you would no longer post on this board.
Or did I imagine that?
"as i said before the partner (solv gov) does a EIA that it doesnt require....gov drags it out now what they should off done instead off the BIT rubbish was just to do the damn EIA all those years ago."
Sorry OldBlue if I have trouble following you scrambled up English.
So the partner has done an EIA that is not required, and AST should have done one years ago.
That makes no sense to me, and totally conflicts with what you posted back in October.
16 Oct 2021
"looks like the EIA etc given to partner for approval IMHO...goverment next....ohh isnt the partner the goverment too?"
This suggests that AST have compiled an EIA and submitted it to their partner for approval.
Do make your mind up!
"Mr Romero acquired 55,169 Shares on 14 December 2021 at a price of £1.37 per Share. The Company was notified of the purchase on 21 February 2022."
A director of a fully listed company is obliged to notify their company of any dealing in its shares within four business days, and the company must pass that information to the market by the end of the following business day.
Two months! What took him so long to notify HOC?
Is he too thick to understand the rules that apply to directors and senior staff, or too arrogant to think that they apply to him? An apology would not have gone amiss in the RNS.
Degiro appears to be an Irish stockbroker with Dutch origins.
And Shell is now purely a UK company, having recently ditched their dual Dutch listing.
Could this be more EU spite that the UK has left their club?
GeorgeZ,
Africal Witholding tax is charged at 20%, however UK tax holders are entitled to be taxed at only 10%.
Some brokers such as HBOS and iWeb honour this agreement and pay the dividend with just a 10% reduction. Others such as AJ Bell withhold the full 20% tax.
The problem is that your broker is the legal owner of your shares not you. Hence you cannot claim back the extra 10% tax even if you wanted to. AJ Bell hide behind their small print to justify this, and claim it would be too costly to reclaim this tax for each of their clients. This argument does not make any sense to me, as if they are the legal owner, surely they only need to make one claim.
The only simple solution to this is to transfer your PAF shares to a more enlightened broker. Many brokers do not charge for transfers, soit could be a wise move.
AST cannot walk away because they have have signed a binding agreement.
EYNO can walk away anytime they want. It is them, and them alone who will determine if the conditions are met, and we have no idea what these conditions are.
One condition might be to find a partner willing to help with the case, or provide some of the required funding. A failure to find a partner terminates the contract.
How can any deal be binding if either party has an option to walk away if certain conditions are not met? And that is why EYNO have not signed on the dotted line.
Binding with loop holes or escape clauses is a contradiction in terms.
"Completion of the damages-based agreement is expected to occur shortly..."
The deal is still not complete some 3 months after AST's announcement.
"Completion of the damages-based agreement is expected to occur shortly once the condition precedents, which include certain conditions the completion of which does not depend on Ascent, are met. "
The statement above, which you chose to omit from your original post, could not be any clearer. The agreement has NOT been completed. EYNO can still walk away. They have NOT committed to fund or progress this litigation. They have simply agreed to think about it.
If you bother to look on EYNO's website you will see that their latest update on the AST case is dated 24th July 2020.
I am not prepared to continue this dialogue further, as you seem incapable of getting it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
(1) What they said.
" the Company is now pleased to announce that it has signed a binding damages-based agreement with Enyo Law"
(2) What they could have said.
" the Company is now pleased to announce that it has entered into a binding damages-based agreement with Enyo Law"
If they had used option 2, then you could reasonably conclude that both parties had signed a binding agreement. However, they did not choose to say this, and simply said that AST had signed.
QED
Okay let's take a scenario you suggested.
" They are either met or not. I don't know what they are and likely not many people do but possibly one is a banking facility from Enyo's bank to fund the expenditure by Enyo."
So if ENYO's bankers refuse to bankroll this littigation, what is the signed agreement worth then?
You need to think of this like a house purchase. When you give your solicitor your signed contract, you have committed to a binding agreement to purchase the property. However, the contract does not become sealed until the vendor signs and the signed contracts are exchanged.
It is binding on Ascent as it says in the RNS.
There is a reason that it does not say that EYNO have signed, and that is because they have not. AST would be acting illegally to deliberately state in an RNS, something they know to be untrue. However, there is nothing to stop a company sugar coating a situation, and implying that things are better than they really are. This is very common on AIM.
"Completion of the damages-based agreement is expected to occur shortly once the condition precedents, which include certain conditions the completion of which does not depend on Ascent, are met. "
It is crystal clear from the above sentence (which you omitted from your earlier post), that the agreement has not been completed. Take off your rose tinted glasses and read what they have said, and not what you would like them to have said.
What that RNS says is that AST have signed a binding agreement with EYNO to pursue arbitration proceedings against Slovenia.
What it does not say is that ENYO have signed a binding agreement to represent AST and fund this arbitration.
Read further down about "condition precedents".
AST signed the agreement over 3 months ago, but EYNO have still not committed.
"Enyo Law LLP have just won a big international arbitration case."
That does not mean that they will be foolish enough to fund AST's case against Slovenia. The fact is that AST have been threatening legal action for 3 years, and have delivered nothing. Insolvency is far more likely than litigation imo.
42Trader is right!
The shares are legally yours and Barclay's has no right to refuse your transfer request. The timing is irrelevant, I have only recently completed one transfer and have this week instigated another. As long as the Aclara shares have been credited to you account you can transfer them at any time you choose.
Contact Barclay's by e-mail, secure message, or post, and ask for an explanation. If they fail to respond send them a formal complaint. They are legally obliged to respond to this within 28 days. If they fail to do this, or you are unhappy with their answer, you may then raise a case with the FSA.
I am less than impressed with ii, but none the less I cannot see why ii would not accept these shares. My other half held shares held HOC with ii, and the new Aclara shares were allocated to their portfolio and are available to trade. I have just been offered a sell price of $1.16 from them.
Get back to Barclay's and ask them why the transfer is refused.
I had the same problem with Lloyds/HBOS & iWeb.
You need to transfer them to a broker who trades on the Canadian market.
I have successfully transferred some to AJ Bell, but not having so much luck with Interactive Investor.