Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
LB, thanks for the info re share certificates cancelled, haven't seen the evidence myself as not read the case.
The whole issue then has been about EUA following correct procedures and asking for Queeld to take out indemnity, which they didn't do. It looks like no-one will come forward to claim they own the share certificates, as they are not on the register, then Queeld will have new ones issued in March 2024.
Both parties have done the right thing, imo, to protect their positions. Anyone know Queelds buy price for the shares and likelyhood of them selling in March if no Co sale by then?
It's not deferred at all..
Queeld failed to provide indemnity it wold appear which is standard practice for lost share certificates.
Queeld look to have claimed that they had lost the share certificates and wanted the company to issue new ones.
The company believe Queeld may have sold the shares to another party some years ago so to protect shareholders from possible dilution refused to issue new certificates without indemnity.
The judge it seems has taken a common sense approach and will allow Queeld to get new share certificates if no one else claims ownership. If anyone else claims ownership then that is between Queeld and that party, not EUA.
Eua will either issue new certificates (and hopefully cancel the old if possible) to Queeld in march 2024 or they will not if another party has proof they purchased the shares from Queeld. As far as EUA is concerned this is case closed imo. Hopefully EUA and Queeld only paid for their own council.
I don't know why people fall for the 'it will sell by Christmas' BS every year! Then it will be some crap about the Russian orthodox Christmas......4th year running!
Put me down for by next Christmas lol
I personally don't think the date of March is relevant. If the co sells between now and then the solicitors would hold the funds instead of share certificates and give them to the rightful owners when the time has lapsed or a counter claim made against Queeld.
All they have to do is wait.
And a pre packaged administration is done very quickly.
I am horrified that he BOD have handled this so badly and very sorry for those who believed in them. Hope it does get sorted favourably for those invested, because clearly this will be generating cash for many years to come if it gets online.
Agree that GS20 should not accept your BTC without KYC (if this is true) but equally you are a bit of a fool to send without having been approved first.
Seems GS20 are correct not to allow the trades until KYC approved.
Bit of a flat earther thing to do. Have you ever been on a aeroplane?
I wonder if GST will try and buy MODE who are currently suspended. Mode have/had a FCA license. Not sure if this has been revoked or if it is transferable if taken over.......just something I've mulled over since MODE f**cked things up.
Yes I am being conservative based on the volumes F1 supplied. We do not know if these are real volumes yet so will have to wait for a company update. But if the volumes are real and we get commission from them then we are indeed currently undervalued by the market.
Are you still in QBT Quant? I remember you from there a while ago.
So if those trade volumes are typical of a daily level and we get approx 0.2% of each trade, then we are in the region of $430k per week. or in sterling £340k ish. £1.36m per month.
Anyone else getting similar numbers?
Obviously volumes and income will vary but even at this level and without growth, we could be looking at £16m annual turnove. So with a 8x valuation we should be valued at approx £130m which seems about right for a tech company at this level.
I believe GST is woefully undervalued at the moment based on these numbers.