Member Info for mrtibbles

Re:Law32; Privatisation & Resources Today 17:23 Some in the judiciary are opposed to the coming push to privatize state owned companies and resource development by foreign entities. They see quashing Law32 as their first line of defence. Whether or not Law32 stands, falls or is modified won't matter because contracts made with corporations are the subject of dispute in every nation and that will never change. The bottom line; if there is big money involved the deal will always get made (or remade as the case may be). Key issues raised by the Commissioners report: 1) equality between civil contracts 2) waste of workers' rights in companies that have (or will be) privatized, although they are an original party to the contract and serious breach of the principle of equality and equal opportunities, 3) a breach of the law as provided in the Constitution on the disposition of state property and natural resources and the lack of respect and obligation to protect ... lack of respect for the rights acquired

RE: .... Today 09:10 Quoting Siko 4th March 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofZ78OrsRTk (19:20) Mr Taema (President of EMRA): Gold licence is offered as a concession agreement in the form of a law which protects the investor because this agreement lasts for 30 years. The best evidence that we are a country which respects its agreements is Al-Sukary agreement as despite what happened since 2011 the agreement is lasting and the company has not stopped and continued working very seriously and I would like to thank the people of Al-Sukary for their hard work and successful story which made us stand on solid ground now while we are marketing the new auctions as we have an evidence of a successful story.

RE: time scale Today 11:37 The SCC does not normally rule on the first date, it normally takes one or two sessions. In the demonstration law the ruling came 2 months after the first date. The first one was in October, and then they had another one in November, then the ruling in December. If the SCC agreed with the commissioners, then law 32 would be cancelled, so the CEY case would go back with the SAC. As we know the case is suspended now, the next step would be for one of the two sides to apply to restart the case; the SAC sets a date and starts again wherever it stopped before the suspension. If the SCC ruled invalidating law 32 around June, it would be Ramadan and the beginning of summer holiday in Egypt where courts are kind of closed and normally reopen in Sept-Oct, and that's when I think our SAC case could restart, but I have no idea how long it could take. In ideal world you would think that the SAC had suspended the case when they collected all the necessary information for the ruling, so really it should not be long. The only thing I could think of that could cause a further delay would be if the members of the SAC changed by then as of course new ones may need time to look at the case again, but as we know this is the Egyptian legal system and nothing is logic when it comes to time. Once again, all this would happen IF the SCC agreed with the commissioners regarding invalidating law 32, and to be honest I think they would because their report is too bad.

Commissioners: L32 UNCONSTITUTIONAL Today 08:42 https://cms.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=27032017&id=43e23d70-2608-44d9-9e44-e71ec7eea937 http://www.dostor.org/1348988 http://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/1960719 http://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/1960899 The commissioners have submitted their report regarding law 32 to the SCC. They recommended the unconstitutionality of the whole of law 32. The SCC has set the 6th May to consider the case. The commissioners filed a report of 175 pages explaining the reasons behind their recommendation. The main points were: The law was not approved by two thirds of the MPs, as it was only approved 374 out of 596 MPs. The law violates the right to litigate. The law represents interference in the affairs of justice and an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/123939/Business/Economy/Egypt-reaches-LE-billion-settlement-over-Madinaty-.aspx Interesting legal piece from Mart- Whilst looking into the circumstances of the Madinaty SCC settlement yesterday I came across an article on Ahramonline. The article contained a considerable amount of detail, however I have cherry picked the following two quotes:- 1) �The government last year approved an amendment to the investment law (Investment Law no. 8/1997) that prevents third parties from challenging contracts signed between the government and investors� � is this law 32 by the back door? 2) �The New Urban Communities Authority approved the SCC settlement with real estate developer Talaat Moustafa Group (TMG) over the Madinaty land dispute. Part of the SCC/Madinaty ruling was to instruct the Administrative Authority to re-evaluate the price paid for the Land�. Madinaty, in their own press release, expressed the view that "given the prevailing market conditions, the re-evaluation is not expected to be materially different from the valuation conducted by the Administrative Authority in November 2010". - Assuming the Madinaty assessment on the material effect of the re-evaluation is correct is it just a face saver to be presented to the local politicians and pressure groups. How a SCC ruling on an urban developer would be applicable to CEY I cannot say but it might be that the Re-Plead would contain enough clarification on some points that would allow the SCC to approve the validity of the contract whilst at the same time impose a similar re-evaluation of say; the profit share for the extended area (unlikely I think), or perhaps asking CEY for a contribution towards the infrastructure costs of the disputed area, or even a re-evaluation of the sums involved in the disputed Oil Contract etc. etc.

For looking in with some answered to help our frustrations. Like many on here I am also incensed, how many years have we been waiting now, if only we had sold out at at whatever, but no we hung on in because but we all believed the end of the court case or a decision on Law 32 wasn't so far off! Although all things considered 6 years on it is more than likely that had Centamin gone to the international court this case would have been settled by now! I was good of Siko to post although I didn�t find the information encouraging, it is obvious the court is just sitting on Law 32 because they can and all the while Egypt�s economy is starved of investment and the people suffer, As to the diesel case I was told by a broker friend years ago that ever since the Sukari mine started up the diesel was supplied at a subsidised rate because EMRA were joint partners and the diesel subsidy would mean that the initial capex would be paid back sooner enabling profit share to start. But alas it seems that it�s not that simple and the subsidy may be reinstated or it may not depending on the courts view of things, but surely the court have had enough time to rule on this, but no they will sit on it because they can! Last year we had the news of a new crusher being commissioned and recently the upbeat Q1 report and estimate OF 580,000 ozs which we had no cause to doubt because Centamin had a record of under promising and over delivering! This is why it is so unbelievable that our board only three weeks later to issue a completely contrary production notice of 505,000 ozs due to poorer ore grades! Not only that the essential specialist equipment (whatever it is?)needed to go some way to rectifying the situation is either unavailable or hasn't been ordered in time,although no explanation has really been offered! The board must have known about all of this before they issued the Q1 statement, or if they weren't then why not? But whatever the reason it doesn't help us ,the market seems to have taken our boards latest RNS as a profit warning in all but name! The share price has been kicked back possibly for years whilst the credibility and the reliability of future reports will be in question after this display of the board being completely out of touch with the true situation on the shop floor!

Our third step is to ask a co-ordinated series of questions at company AGMs. All companies should want to communicate and better engage with their shareholders so it will be difficult for them not to agree with our goal. The suggested question is as follows: Question for the AGM Please can you tell me what percentage of your shares are held by individual investors? And do you know what percentage of these individuals have voted at this AGM by proxy? Can you tell me what percentage of your individual shareholders do not get to see your annual report, and do not get notification of the AGM or voting forms? Will you support me and ShareSoc, the UK Individual Shareholders Society, in lobbying the UK government to put the end investor's name and email address on the shareholder register, so that you can more easily communicate with your shareholders? The EU Shareholder Rights Directive has a clear intent that the end investor should be identified on the shareholder register and not just the Nominee. Will you lobby the UK government to implement the clear intent of the EU Shareholder Rights Directive and hence protect the rights of Individual Shareholders? To achieve maximum effect, email the company secretary before the AGM with a copy of your question. This will ensure they prepare a considered response at the AGM. Please copy your email to cliffweight1@gmail.com who has agreed to keep a register of companies questioned. Other steps in our campaign will be further meetings with BEIS, Government, FCA, etc; publicity via media; and contacting platforms and registrars to ask them to voluntarily agree to improve their systems, processes and service to individual investors. Please note that we will be writing to you again shortly, asking you to write again to your MP, asking them to amend the Special Administration Rules, which currently allow your assets to be raided to pay for Administrators’ costs. Your support for both these initiatives is much appreciated. They are vitally important to defend your interests. Yours sincerely, Mark Northway Chairman

The suggested wording of a letter/email to your MP is as follows: Dear xxxx, Please can you ask Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to implement the Shareholder Rights Directive's clear intent that the end investor should be identified on the company register. This should include their email address, and they should be entitled to receive company information and annual reports, and to vote at company general meetings. See https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-1944240_en for details. The UK law is at odds with the EU Directive. UK law defines a shareholder as the nominee (when shares are held in a nominee account) and not the end investor (ie. the individual investor like you or me). Note that the accounts offered by most UK brokerages and platforms place the account holders shares in a nominee account. At present, this is mandatory for ISAs and SIPPs. The UK law must be changed. However, to date, the UK Government and BEIS has been resistant to changing the UK legislation so as to meet the intent of the EU Directive. We now have a once in a decade opportunity to get this problem resolved. We must not let the opportunity slip. Your help in making this happen is most appreciated. Your sincerely [Your name] Please send a letter or email, along these lines to your MP. It is vital that you do so.

Letter from the Share Society Shareholder Rights and Nominee Accounts I am writing to urge members like you to attend AGMs and ask questions about this subject and write to your MPs. This is part of a concerted campaign to enhance and protect your rights. Probably the most important ShareSoc campaign is the Shareholder Rights campaign, launched in October 2014 to gain full rights for ALL shareholders. Individual shareholder rights have been eroded, particularly by the nominee account mechanism and the way that platforms and brokers fail to provide a good service to individual investors. Often, individual investors are not informed when a general meeting is going to happen, and do not receive circulars, voting forms and annual reports. And many platforms make it difficult and expensive for investors to get this information. By having shares registered in nominee accounts, rather than in shareholders own names, they are at risk in the event of a broker insolvency and subject to an FSCS compensation limit of �50,000. Any loss above this is not covered. The Beaufort Scandal has highlighted the way administrators can dip into investors' funds to pay their costs and fees first. Some Beaufort investors may be facing a loss of up to 40%. Help may be at hand in the form of the Shareholder Rights Directive. SRD II has a clear intent that the end investor should be identified on the company register, including their email address, and should be entitled to receive company information and annual reports. See https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-1944240_en for details. UK law is at odds with the EU Directive. UK law defines a shareholder as the nominee and not the end investor (ie the individual investor like you or me). The UK law must be changed. However, to date, the UK Government has been resistant to changing the UK legislation so as to meet the intent of the EU Directive. We now have a once in a decade opportunity to get this problem resolved. We must not let the opportunity slip. We will be working with UKSA (and others) to make sure that BEIS and the Government make the right decision. As a first step we have written to BEIS: click here for a copy of our joint letter from UKSA and ShareSoc to BEIS about SRD II. Our second step is to ask members to write to their MP requesting that Government implement the Shareholder Rights Directive's clear intent that the end investor should be identified on the company register. You can find details of your MP's name and email address at this http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-1944240_en

head in the sand has been the way of the Cey board for some time now! Six years of cut and paste statements regarding a sham court case is not acceptable! There is no case to answer, if there was then EMRA wouldn't be working in partnership with Centamin! Of course resolving this would involve some of our management getting of their ars(es and actually tackling the issue with the relevant Egyptian representatives and if no solution was found then going to the international court, but our management prefer to bury their head in the sand instead! The withdrawal of the diesel subsidy withdrawal is contrary to the terms of the original Sukari agreement and if taken to the international court Centamin would most almost certainly win the day, as have so many other companies in similar situations! Yet what have our management done for six years, simply cut and paste the same excuse for doing nothing! Is it any wonder that the Egyptian authorities see no urgency to settling a diesel fuel case that could cost them millions of dollars or the court case regarding the mine licence when they know they know that the Centamin board are not willing to risk rocking the boat and so can be kept dangling on a string for decades! Whilst handsomely rewarding themselves he Centamin board have given the share holders scraps from the table and even those and much more are now lost! Yet were the court case settled the share price could double very quickly and if the diesel fuel subsidy reinstated then the Egyptian government would have to compensate Centamin for many millions of pounds whilst ongoing the ongoing Sukari production costs would be significantly reduced!

Hi everyone, Many of you know that I am a long term investor and have been a loyal supporter of the the management team, That is why I am incensed by the announcement made on Friday, just before a bank holiday which I cannot believe was coincidence! As usual the majority of ordinary investors are left dangling and bearing the pain! I fail to see how these poorer ore grades or the unavailability of essential equipment were not known by the senior management when the Q1 results and look forward were released. The boards behaviour on this occasion is reprehensible and not what we have come to expect from Centamin,they have treated their loyal share holders very shabbily, shame on them! So I encourage you all to let your feelings be known by contacting iCentamin investor relations and asking for a detailed explanation of how and why the Cey senior management allowed the production situation to deteriorate to this sorry state without taking earlier remedial measures? Remember not only has the credibility of the senior management of Centamin gone down the lavatory pan but also a large percentage of share holders future divi! Please also encourage members of other forums to email investor relations to vent their dissatisfaction with the performance of the senior management. I am more than willing to confront the Centamin investor relations on behalf of all share holders should they wish to keep me informed of the response they receive to their questions. I agree we have received good dividends recently,however their worth has now been completely wiped out!

What explanation would you like? It's simple really, the board have failed miserably in their core responsibilities and their professional competence or suitability for their posts must be questioned Perhaps you mean "What excuses are there?" A big cash pile isn't going to last long if this behaviour carries on! Look the Acacia situation which despite the action of the host country government was brought about in part by the management style/practices of the company. At present who can really have any confidence in the sincerity or professional capabilities of the Centamin management?

What is certainly surprising is such dissimilar statements so close together. Hit the nail on the head there! This smacks of a board that has become complacent and out of touch with the day to day mine operation! The board have been snoozing because they have become accustomed to Sukari churning out cash like a demented ATM! From my experience in most companies when the senior management become complacent, i.e. then fat on bonuses and asleep on their watch the staff on the shop floor soon realise and take it as an opportunity to also take things easy and not show as much interest as they had done previously! It has become custom and practice year on for the Centamin management to issue to cut and paste statements regarding the court case.Law 32 and the diesel fuel subsidy, although worryingly this same practice seems now to have extended to the Q! 2018 statement! Complacent and comfy and assuming that Sukari was continuing to spit out the gold the senior management have applied a cut and paste Q! report of what they think the analysts want to hear, confident that the target of 580.000 will be reached and the usual divi fob off chucked to the share holders! But whilst our management were snuggling back down into their comfy chairs the Sukari ATM was running short on gold and there was no contingency plan to deal with the shortage! There could have been if senior management had not been so comfy and content to leave things as they were, but nobody had bothered to put any real effort into finding the spacial piece of kit to put the ATM right because everyone thought someone else would be dealing with it ! There is no excuse for the complacency and laziness exhibited by the Centamin board that has led to them having to resort to a complete about turn and an emergency statement issued on a Friday just before a bank holiday regarding the true state of things! The board have failed miserably in their responsibilities to the company and it's share holders and some arse(s should be kicked down the road! Is the reaction of the market any surprise? If the board knew the true sate of things when the Q! statement was issued then they are guilty of misleading the share holders and the market! If they were unaware of the problems with lower grades and equipment availability then they are guilty of complacency and professional incompetence and should be gotten rid of! The behaviour of the present Centamin board must put into doubt any future statement they make unless those responsible are brought to account and credible remedies put in place to ensure nothing like this fiasco happens in the future.

Maybe, not unless our board wake up from their comatose state of complacency and demonstrate that they they are actuality going to start to manage rather than snooze snuggled up in that pile of cash ! How many years now has the diesel fuel dispute been going on with the meter running and really should have been settled before profit share started. The writing was on the wall regarding oil prices once Trump's foreign policy started! Cey management make a statement about ramping up production, yet they haven't got the equipment to actually deliver this increase in production or even any idea if or when it will became available? So isn't it time to use some of that cash pile to buy back some shares? If they aren't prepared to demonstrate their confidence in their own strategy by doing this then why should investors risk their cash? At present the board have demonstrated that they are hiding their heads in the sand or out of touch with so many of the pressing issues regarding Sukari that they really should be dealing with as a matter of urgency! The last Q! statement has turned out to be unreliable in key areas which may have been down to sheer laziness, incompetence, complacency or more worryingly intentional!

The Centamin board seems to have failed its share holders by issuing an inaccurate assessment of the 2018 years production. There can be no excuse for the board not being aware of the unavailability of essential mining equipment that would play such an important part in delivering their production estimates! They employ a team of mining specialists to advise on grades, so what happened in three weeks? So if this equipment is unavailable and the grades fail to improve how can they predict a better Q3 & Q4? Revised 2018 Outlook As a result of persisting low grades from the transitional zone in the open pit, combined with lower development grade from underground, production guidance for 2018 from Sukari has been revised to between 505,000 and 515,000 ounces, at a cash cost of production of US$625 to US$640 per ounce produced and an all-in-sustaining cost of US$875 to US$890 per ounces sold. The updated mine plan forecasts a weaker Q2 and strong Q3 and Q4 production profile.

So who is responsible for buying this equipment/ What is it? Why isn't it available? They must have been aware of this situation months ago and so must the board unless they are complacent or out of touch with reality!

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-centamin-outlook/gold-miner-centamin-cuts-output-targets-on-lower-grade-ore-idUKKCN1IQ0NN Underground production is about 10 percent below forecast due to lack of equipment availability, Centamin said, while open-pit tonnage was ahead of schedule, albeit at a lower grade. An updated mine plan forecast a weaker second quarter but strengthening for the rest of the year, the company said. It had previously maintained its outlook for the year after posting a twofold increase in first-quarter profit on higher gold output. �The company has in recent years rebuilt its reputation to one for reliability, so it is disappointing to see such a substantial downgrade just three weeks after it reaffirmed its previous guidance,� Investec analysts said in a note. However, Investec maintained its �buy� recommendation on Centamin, citing the miner�s resilient balance sheet, good shareholder returns and long-life production base. Reporting by Zandi Shabalala; Editing by David Goodman Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

So output adjusted down, fair enough but the management have only just issued a very upbeat Q1 estimate for 2018 of 580,000 ozs. Perhaps Cey management no longer have their finger on the pulse,the communications between production and the board room have broken down,or the management have became complacent and just issue the same old production estimate with the cut and paste statement re the court case and diesel subsidy? It would seem on this occasion that the share holders have not been given an accurate Q! account of the true state of things , although perhaps the board are now adopting some of the ways of Acacia in view of the new appointment of Mark Morcombe, as Chief Operating Officer (�COO�)? We all know how the fortunes of Acacia have crashed!

With the present price of oil the loss of the diesel fuel subsidy is costing the company and share holders even more! Surely the Egyptian courts should have ruled on this by now,although I can understand the reluctance to rule in favour of Centamin as the Egyptian governments is cash strapped and it maybe the only way of paying back the originally agreed diesel subsidy would be from the profit share! I know that some holders who are satisfied with the Cenatmin management's past production performance disregard the apparent complacency of the Centamin management regarding the lost diesel subsidy and the court case. However today's news and the subsequent slaughtering of our share price has shown the folly of the sitting on hands in the Centamin board room Our management have been remarkably complacent over this very expensive on cost whilst the meter is constantly running! Excerpt from my email to Centamin 19th 04 2016 (never answered) In a share holder phone conference 10/11/15 it was stated by Andy Pardey CEO and Pierre Louw CFO that the excess cumulative cost to Centamin for unsubsidised fuel for 15 quarters from the beginning of 2012 when the government stopped the subsidy was $198 million . Add to this Q4 subsidy $16 million. add to this the government loan $29 million Then the total owed by or lent to the government or State is $243 million. If there are 1152 million issued shares in Centamin then this loan equates to $0.21 or �0.15 per share. I am not a mining engineer,however I find it hard to understand why the Centamin board were unaware of the situation announced today when they made the 2018 Q1 announcement. If the board were unaware then one must ask why, but whatever the reason their credibility has been severely undermined.

With the present price of oil the loss of the diesel fuel subsidy is costing the company and share holders even more! Surely the Egyptian courts should have ruled on this by now,, although I can understand the reluctance to rule in favour of Centamin as the Egyptian governments is cash strapped and the only way of paying back the originally agreed diesel subsidy would be from the profit share! However our management have been remarkably complacent over this very expensive on cost whilst the meter is constantly running! Excerpt from my email to Centamin 19th 04 2016 In a share holder phone conference 10/11/15 it was stated by Andy Pardey CEO and Pierre Louw CFO that the excess cumulative cost to Centamin for unsubsidised fuel for 15 quarters from the beginning of 2012 when the government stopped the subsidy was $198 million . Add to this Q4 subsidy $16 million. add to this the government loan $29 million Then the total owed by or lent to the government or State is $243 million. If there are 1152 million issued shares in Centamin then this loan equates to $0.21 or �0.15 per share. reason for the complacency