We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Hi MagnumPl,
A Tomlin order is an agreement made between both parties prior to a hearing, there is no judgement for a Tomlin order, that's the main reason for seeking one.
So EUA agreed to accept that no idemnity needed to be sought to come to this agreement that is effectively this Tomlin order. They accepted there was an alternate route to sorting this out, was this route something Q and M had been asking for over the 5 years this has been going on.
Hi Magnum.Pl,
The point I was trying to make with my first earlier post was that claims that the Q and M case was done and dusted can't really be said for certain, whether Q and M have a valid case seeking damages is something for a judge to rule on if it is a matter Q and M decide to take further (and I didn't say they were) or if it hasn't already been dealt with as part of a schedule to the Tomlin order.
If all of Q and M's share certificates were cancelled by EUA and they were named certificates as well then Q and M could argue EUA had done all they needed to protect other shareholders so no need for any indemnity so why the delay in reissuing certificates.
I don't think Q and M would have a chance of saying they would only have sold at 40p for example, they would need correspondence with EUA saying they wanted new certificates as they wanted to sell to show a date and relevant SP at the time of the correspondence to stand any chance.
As EUA cancelled all of Q and M's share certificates a long time ago and as they were certificates with the holders name on them then Q and M may be arguing they didn't need to provide any indemnity as EUA's action had already protected shareholders.
Hi stonk,
Except we don't know what was in the schedule of the Tomlin order so how can you claim it's resolved simply by the issue of new certificates. The schedule can contain an agreement between the parties for agreed compensation arising from Q and M not being able to sell their shares which is a binding agreement between the parties so the stay on proceedings can be lifted and an application for breach of contract raised, would that application not be under the first case brought as the breach of contract is part of the first case.
A point about the Q and M case is that, as per company RNS, the proceedings have been stayed, so put on hold and the reason for Q and M to have brought the case will not have been resolved just by them finally obtaining their share certificates.
What seems to be their issue from people who have read case notes is that they were unable to sell their shares at a time of their choice because they had no means to do so having no issued share certificates so whilst one issue is resolved, they will be issued with new share certificates (although no able to do anything with them until 5th March), the issue of seeking damages for the cost to them of not being able to profit from selling their shares is what will be heard when proceedings continue after 5th March if they decide to continue. I can't see any costs orders being made until the whole matter is settled.
Hi seamus12,
15 March 2015 RNS
Says 2 approaches from partieswho have expressed an interest in aquiring outright or aquiring an interest in MT.
Over 9 and a half years now and haven't got it over the line, not trying to say they won't, it could happen, but if they have had so many potential buyers as they claim then clearly something has been stopping it from selling or stopping anyone making an offer yet that the BOD feel is acceptable. Do they live in the hope someone will offer something they may take and that's why they keep going. Being paid while they keep hoping certainly helps.
Hi Spikey,
Confident I've never lied so far from bothered. A quick look at Dansesca's posts show's a first time investor buying in at 33p and chasing it all the way down whilst idolising Tilly, Mac and Ian and throwing flak at anyone who doesn't provide the confidence bias they seek.
I appreciate I say things people don't like to hear, some may not like me pointing to EUA having half the value in WK as they may have thought for example but it's all there in black and white straight from the company they are invested in.
I think my first post was pointing out the same about WK to either GFD or GLG, didn't go down well then either :)
Ah Dansesca,
The person complaining about the lack of debate here. Now telling people to read one post, the one that suits their need for confirmation bias. Debating is about being open to hearing views other than your own not trying to stiffle anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
In relation to this Q and M case, it seems the arguement has been EUA saying we can't issue new certificates as you might have sold them, Q and M saying we haven't so it's likely the Judge would hold any costs award until it can be seen whether or not Q and M were telling the truth, if they weren't then costs awarded in EUA's favour so a wait to find out.
Hi Tygra,
Yes agreed, as with the WUP.
Corporate lawyers don't start a WUP if there has been a valid dispute raised as it will just get thrown out of court with costs awarded against them. What's EUA's arguement, there's a dispute. Don't seem as if it was raised before hand so more wasted shareholders funds to sort out.
Hi Tygra,
Sadly it won't have been hourly rates for the court case, day rates for, most likely, solicitor and barrister x 2 as they are highly likely to have had costs awarded against them so paying their and Q and M's legal costs. Someone said the court case was booked for all week, I don't know that for sure but you pay a barrister for the time he/she is booked out to represent you in court whether it's settled on the steps of the court or not. Potentially a sizeable award against EUA costs wise.
Minimum 50-60p is your suggestion Makeabundle.
2,865,000,000 shares in issue
50p £1.432billion 60p £1.72billion
Except we own 80% of MT and NK(T) and 68% of WK with the T in NKT (not confirmed by the company).
For the sake of arguement and making it an easier calculation say 75% ownership over both.
So your actual expected sale price at 50p £1.9billion 60p £2.3billion.
Good luck with that.
WK DFS had 4477kg of raw Platinum = 157,903ozs.
Raw Platinum contains 70% on average pure Platinum so down to 110,532ozs
68% share of WK, down to 75,162ozs
£709 per oz = £53.3million in ground value to EUA.
You don't recover 100% of what's there, costs to mine, cost to refine, get less than LME price, directors salaries, head office costs, taxes, interest charges, etc.
Flanks to WK exploration licences value to add?
just back in, not sure what the wup has to do with reserves and resources, scrolled down as far as bobbybingo's post.
i'm using the only bit of information the company has given about reserves and resources at mt and that's part of the point, it is old but it's the only information the comp-any has seen fit to disclose although the important bit is missing.
it's part of aim listing requirements to report on any drilling, minimum is drilling depth, what is found, grades and interval over which they have been found. so where are the drilling results?
the whole point of the aim listing requirements are so investors in mining companies know what they are invested in and aren't investing blindly. i would love to see the full dfs for mt, it's been approved by the russian authorities so why the secrecy?
in the early days of the company full results of all drilling were given where anything was found as per listing requirements. 3 years of infill drilling at wk to up resources to reserves as it had to meet minimum levels to be mined, not one single drill result given. there has been suggestions of some drilling at mt since the maiden reserves, not one single drill result given.
does eua own more than 80% at mt? anyone else want to put up some figures for what recovery rates you expect from floatation which the company has said is the method that will be used at mt? anyone else climbed off their lazy ****s to do any research on the company they are invested in to understand what they are invested in so they can understand what the rns's are actually saying?
or are you all blindly investing here.
i'm not trying to talk this down, i'm quoting from a company rns about the resources at mt, try reading it, it uses plain english.