Member Info for Millfield

RB - You are probably not missing much. As in many battles for control of a company, the real truth is often heavily disguised, rarely to be fully disclosed. However, I am sure that the outcome at next weeks AGM will not be affected by whatever opinions we may share here. Meanwhile, we can enjoy our irrelevant jousting to help pass away the many minutes until my missus returns to cook my dinner.

Who knows for sure? There are many on this board making assertions, assumptions, and accusations. It seems to be acceptable conjecture, as well as most entertaining.

But have they stated that they have nothing to do with Mr. Rakishev?

I met PH shortly after the Renova proposal had been announced, and a couple of months before last years AGM. What upset him most was the timing of the coup attempt, which he must have known would likely succeed. The usurpers waited until Peter and Pavel had achieved a turnaround, as was shown in the H1 results last year. We next spoke at the wake after the AGM, when both Peter and one of the ousted non-execs assured me that the fight was not yet all over. A battle had been lost but the war would continue. As I have said on many occasions, I would vote in favour of Peter and Pavel regaining control of the company they founded all those years ago, despite the errors made at the peak of the last metals bull, simply because I trust them to look after us small shareholders. As for the suggestion that bogus posting IDs have been set up to promote their cause, this is surely fantasy, borne out of paranoia. One might suspect such shenanigans from a fraudulent AIM stock (Quindell springs to mind), but certainly not from the founders of a long standing main market company. Before someone claims it is anonymous Russian spivs who are behind the counter-coup, I would suggest it is becoming perfectly clear that the main drivers are in fact the old board (including PH), with of course a little help from Mr. Rakishev.

WOW - I am beginning to think you are taking this a bit too seriously, especially as it is unlikely readers of this board would make more than 2% of difference even should they all vote the same way.

I am not sure what you are getting at. We all know that The R/S/M cartel ousted the board last year, and some months later only two of them for reasons unknown to us decided to sell out. If there was trouble, they would have known about it because they were represented at board level. However, if there was trouble we small shareholders were not informed, apart from the PM resignation RNS On the basis that Renova and M&G have not informed us of their reason for selling out, and Sothic not informing us of their reason for staying in, of course we don't know what they know, and we probably will never know.

This gets still murkier. Since the coup last year there have been no RNS warnings of trouble with the workforce, apart from the abrupt resignation of Pavel Maslovskiy. One has to wonder why? Was it because the problems do not exist? Was it because they only surfaced recently in conjunction with and in support of, the counter-coup? Or, was it because the current BoD thought it unwise to highlight the problems prior to the AGM confirming their juicy salary and bonus arrangements? In any event it may provide a plausible reason why Renova and M&G gave up and sold out. Why Sothic remains as a shareholder, and in support of the current board is a mystery.

Trouble at t' mill? Could this be why Renova and M&G legged it?

RB - What is your case? That the Renova/M&G/Sothic coup was not a concert party, and that no pre-coup strategy meetings took place. or That there was no need to demand the shareholder register of Renova/M&G/Sothic because apart from the well known philanthropist and candidate for sainthood, Mr. Vekselberg, the actual money invested with the Renova accomplices belonged to anonymous investors who had no say how the fund managers applied their funds. In which case why were the identities of individual fund managers responsible not demanded by the old board, or the posters on this board, last year? Do tell.

And so it should. That one who would welcome without question a coup inspired by Renova, ultimately controlled by Viktor Vekselberg, to oust the founders of POG and their board, now cries foul when the same methods are used to restore the status quo as at this time last year. That Renova and M&G have not stuck around to support the current board, and which speaks volumes. That the allies of the old board wish to preserve their privacy is probably irrelevant and immaterial, and thus does not inspire any belief beggaring in me.

You may well be correct Rusty. Both Vailaski (Indirect) and Asia Pacific bank had 9.11% in December 2017, which I failed to notice, and I probably came to the wrong conclusion there.

I think your prediction that Mr. Rakishev will win control is a bit wide of the mark as he currently only has 20% of the issued shares. He and his allies he should however win the day, resulting in Pavel and the board members ousted last year being reinstated, together I suspect with Mr. Mukazhanov as Fincrafts representative. Whether Peter will be invited to return, or would accept a NED post remains to be seen.

I am accusing no-one of lying, merely commenting on the possibly coincidental 9.11% ex-Vailaski indirect shareholding seemingly now split in two and being used to support a counter-coup against last years usurpers.

According to the POG register published on their website in December 2017, Vailaski Holdings held 9.57%, of which 9.11% were indirect, presumably held for the benefit of PH and PM at that time CABS and Slevin each now hold 4.55%, and one must accept the probability that these shares were the Vailaski indirect holding, and are still held in trust for PM and PH respectively. It therefore follows that the mystery beneficial owners of the CABS and Slevin holdings are probably none other than PM and PH. As such I will be backing the counter-coup. If anyone wants a more informed view, and is a subscriber to SP, I have asked TW to comment on this and he has indicated that he will try to publish his opinion in the course of the next few days.

Best not ask too many questions., or believe every statement made. Just enjoy the SP recovery while it lasts.

I suppose it is a matter of trust really. Having met PH at a number of events (including the �wake� after last year�s AGM), and having listened to his obviously genuine dedication to the company and all shareholders, I cannot help but want to support him and Pavel in their efforts to regain control of the company they founded all those years ago. In contrast we have the Renova/M&G/Sothic nominees, who not even Renova and M&G have stuck around to support. No contest.

WS makes an interesting suggestion below that the old POG board should have acted in the best interest of shareholders by simply withdrawing the IRC loan guarantee. I would suggest that the lender might not have agreed to that proposal. Meanwhile the early reaction to the Sothic contribution seems none too positive. We can only hope that whoever is mopping up large parcels of shares continues the efforts begun at the end of last week.

The Sothic letter does not tell us anything we did not already know. It has to be accepted that the old board made serious mistakes at the peak of the last metals bull, and as a result brought the Company to the brink of bankruptcy. However, they managed to keep POG solvent, albeit at a heavy cost, and the H1 results to June last year demonstrated the progress they had made. As for IRC, that company was conceived during the 2000-2011 bull run to take advantage of the superb strategic location near the border with North East China. Nothing wrong with the idea, but the timing of course could not have been much worse. However, it is possible that a new bull market in iron ore could make POG�s 30% worth more even than their own current market cap. The all paper deal to take over Amur Zoloto would have been dilutive certainly, but the increase in resources would have strengthened the balance sheet, and thus the credit rating of the Company considerably. Bear in mind that Vekselberg wanted POG to acquire his Kamchatka assets, which are located far away from POG�s base of operations, as opposed to Amur Zoloto, which are conveniently near. That the new board are fighting for their highly lucrative jobs is no surprise, but it remains a fact that they were installed via the coup instigated primarily by Renova with the collusion of Sothic and M&G. That Renova and Vekselberg have a somewhat questionable reputation in regard to their business methods has been pointed out here many times, so I would suggest that Sothic�s credibility is tainted by association. Why Renova and M&G have run for the hills and abandoned Sothic to support their new board alone is an interesting question, which I hope will be answered at the forthcoming AGM. It is surprising that Peter Hambro has not been mentioned as a participant in the counter-coup, but I rather suspect that one of the undisclosed identities would probably relate to his substantial holding. It would therefore not be surprising if he were to be invited back to the board in the event of the counter-coup being successful. It would appear that some here are still confused as to the structure of the deal which financed Peter and Pavel to take up their rights in 2015. I believe they both took up their full rights, but were financed for the greater part by Vailasky. That all three parties secured their interests by a combination of put/call options is perfectly open and above board, but seems to be the cause of said confusion.

Kommersant sources in the market say that Mr. Rakishev can act in the interests of Musa Bazhayev, who planned to bring his Amur Gold to Petropavlovsk (Mr. Rakishev claims he bought shares of gold miner counting on the upside), and CABS and Slevin obviously represent interests of Pavel Maslovsky and his partners. Director of Prosperity Capital Management Ivan Mazalov in late May told Kommersant that the fund has not yet made a final decision on whether he will support the proposal to change the board of directors of Petropavlovsk and the return of Mr. Maslovsky. "We are considering various options that would benefit all shareholders," he noted. In Sothic Capital Management, owning 10.51% of Petropavlovsk, and DE Shaw & Co (7.7% of shares of gold miner), the topic was not commented. "The situation when the board of directors without formal support of the majority shareholders comes into conflict with the shareholders is pleased with the unusual, but it is likely that in the summer the directors will change," says a source in the industry. At the same time, the disputes cause a resurgence of trading in securities of Petropavlovsk: on June 8, they went up by 14.79%, the company's capitalization on the LSE was � 269 million ($ 360.7 million). Anatoly Jumailo

CABS together with another offshore company Slevin Ltd (Anguilla, owns 4.55% Petropavlovsk) propose to the shareholders meeting on June 29 to replace the existing board of directors of the gold miner, appointed in the summer of 2017 Renova Viktor Vekselberg (owned 22.4% of the company) and a number of investment funds , and return to the company of its co-founder Pavel Maslovsky and two independent directors Roderick Lain and Robert Jenkins. Slevin told the gold miner's advice that its owner is Redland Capital Holdings Inc (BWO), which, in turn, owns the Lacetti Foundation (Liechtenstein). Both companies received Petropavlovsk shares from ATB Bank (originally bought 9.11% by Slevin), and these papers were put in the bank by the structures of Pavel Maslovsky and Peter Hambro, who did not realize the option to buy out. Renova sold its stake in Petropavlovsk to Kazakh businessman Kenes Rakishev in December 2017 (22.4% of the shares, and potentially 6.83% of votes in convertible bonds), and in May, almost the entire share in 6.8% was sold by the Prudential group . The buyer of most of the securities, sources told Kommersant, spoke to Prosperity Capital Management (they confirmed that they became a shareholder of the company without revealing the details). Kenes Rakishev previously stated that he supports the proposal of CABS and Slevin on the change of Petropavlovsk's board of directors and the return of Pavel Maslovsky, but against exclusion of the representative of his Fincraft Holdings Bektas Mukazhanov from the council. But the board of directors of Petropavlovsk on June 8 said that Mr. Mukazhanov left the council after being notified of such a recommendation by other directors against the backdrop of Mr. Rakishev's support for a change of council and a conflict situation. It should be noted that the lawyer Bruce Buck, a well-known lawyer in the corporate world, joined the board of Petropavlovsk from the filing of Renova, a former partner of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who carried out transactions for Roman Abramovich for Sibneft and Alfa-Access- Renova by TNK-BP. Mr. Buck is still the head of the board of directors of FC "Chelsea" owned by Mr. Abramovich. Kenes Rakishev told Kommersant that he was not familiar with Yevgeny Khata and other CABS shareholders, they had no joint projects with them. CyberTrust and Mr. Khata did not respond to inquiries from Kommersant.