The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Sorry am not in politics. Have no answer to your question.
Hi guys, I dont hold any MWA shares but my contibution can help because i have BIND.ZW shares in my Harare portfolio. Was having a chat with a broker at Time bank(ZW) and asked him how could it be possible that a company has more value than its parent company. He said there are not so many "healthy" companies listed on "ZW" stock exch. so every broker has a recommed on BIND.ZW and secondly bindura is seen as a company compliant with indigenous laws therefore foreign investors have temporarily shifted money from more risky companies like Barclays.ZW as it hasnt fully complied with the laws. He also pointed out that as zim economy is faultering BIND.ZW will probably double even treble in short/medium term. and lastly he mentioned that smelting 3rd part companies ores will bring the biggest cash boost to BiND.ZW as local government wants to ban raw exports and non of the other companies have the capacity to build smelters. He said even if bindura were to stop mining operations but maintain the smelter is enough to see the company rise even further and said mkt cap of $150m medium term looks very possible from mining and smelting operations.
was offered shares when OML demutulised, never sold them its almost 15yrs now, then hence my name! they are not doing me any good either-but for my names sake-i will not sell. what a loyalist!
Cambria Africa — formerly LonZim — is currently embroiled in a dispute with its major shareholder Lonrho over payment of insurance proceeds, outstanding lease payments and the condition of its two planes that were being operated by Fly540, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lonrho. Lonrho has a 22,9 percent stake in the Zimbabwe-focused business entity. In its interim financials for the year ending February 29, Cambria Africa contends that it is owed in excess of $2,9 million for proceeds related to the lease of a Fokker F27-500 Cargo plane to 540 Uganda Limited in September 2008 and also the lease of the ATR 42-320 (ATR) to Five Forty Aviation Limited in July 2009. A third aircraft, which was also leased by 540, was destroyed in an accident in January 2011. In particular, the bulk of the money, about $2,3 million, is owed as lease and maintenance reserve payments and interest for the ATR plane, while $148 000 and $527 000 is believed to have accrued as insurance proceeds and related interest and lease and maintenance reserve payments for the F27 plane. However, Lonrho claims that it doesn’t owe Cambria anything. Instead, it claims that the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) listed company has an obligation of $829 000 “although the basis for this has not yet been set out”. Noted Cambria: “Cambria continues to own two aircraft through its subsidiary LonZim Air (B.V.I.) Limited: a Fokker F27-500 Cargo (F27) and an ATR 42-320 (ATR). The F27 was leased to 540 (Uganda) Limited in September 2008 and the ATR was leased to Five Forty Aviation Limited in July 2009. Both entities (collectively “540”) are, or are understood to be subsidiaries of Lonrho. A third aircraft leased by 540 was destroyed in an accident in January 2011. “A number of disputes have arisen in relation to these aircraft and associated contracts. These disputes relate, inter alia, to the payment of insurance proceeds, outstanding lease payments, maintenance reserves and the condition of the two remaining aircraft. Cambria considers that substantial sums are due from 540. 540 contends that no sums are due to Cambria and/or its associated companies and that, overall, it is owed approximately $829 000 in relation to the aircraft, although the basis for this has not yet been set out. “Taking these matters into account Cambria has recognised a contingent asset of $2,9 million in relation to the aircraft and sums due from 540. “In addition, Cambria’s short-term debtors include $1,3 million recorded in the books of LonZim Air (B.V.I.) Limited in relation to the above issues up to 31 August 2011.” The dispute between the two companies seemingly reflects a growing rift between them. During the first quarter of the year, LonZim decided to change its name to Cambria and indicated that it can operate without direct support from its major shareholder. Board changes
did we see profit jumps that warrants 200k wage increase. Greedy, greedy. DL consider shareholders
your post 16-may-Do you wanna revise it now. additional quarter-million -pound pay raise! shame!
HARARE - The national Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Board (NIEEB) has recommended Indigenisation minister Saviour Kasukuwere to cancel Masawara Plc’s acquisition of BP & Shell Marketing Services (BPSMS) local assets. NIEEB in a 23-paged report in possession of businessdaily, said Masawara had misrepresented its shareholder composition and failed to implement an employee shareholder scheme among other conditions of acquiring the business. “We recommend revocation of the approval. The legal implication will be that the two parties will not be legally able to conclude their agreement. Both parties will revert to status quo ante. “The company will continue to operate under BP and Shell through local management until properly indigenised,” the report said. “The continuance of the transaction is ultra vires the indigenisation laws. The transaction approval was procured through misrepresentation and fraudulent non-disclosure of information, an imprisonable offence in terms of the regulations." “It is not in the best interest of the country to allow the transaction to continue,” the NIEEB Compliance department said in the document. The board said Masawara had deliberated misrepresented to the ministry the actual buyers of the fuel assets as the company that applied for regulatory approval and the eventual owner of the BPSMS assets were completely different." “Therefore we are convinced that minister can now take action without further ado based on the information used to compile this report." “Further Ernest and Young London has attested to the veracity of these statements. The shareholding between the applicant and the eventual owner of the assets is different. The eventual owner (being MEM) through FMI Energy Zimbabwe) is offshore, yet the applicant is onshore, being FMI Zimbabwe,” read part of the NIEEB investigative report. “What is happening as a result is externalisation of business proceeds from the assets through possible supply contracts and transfer pricing.” Business tycoon, Shingai Mutasa, for and on behalf of FMI Zimbabwe (Private) Limited in correspondence dated October 25, 2010 to Minister of Youth, Indigenisation and Empowerment said: “FMI Holdings (Private) Limited is an investment company incorporated in Zimbabwe in terms of the Companies Act (Chapter 24:03), under registration number 3181/90. “The shareholders are Listerton Investments (Private) Limited, a company that is wholly owned by the Shingai Mutasa Family Trust; S Mutasa and L Mutasa." “The other shareholders in Masawara Plc are institutional and private investors, primarily based in the United Kingdom. The only single shareholder is Invesco Plc which holds approximately 29,5 percent of Masawara. Invesco is an inactive shareholder in Masawara, with no representation on the Board of Directors, and no influence over the op
why is this falling when just released healf year were good. or am i missing some facts?
more than 35 billion shares were issue at a price of 0.06. this means our shares have been "diluted" upwards. lets wait and see.
is anyone having trouble in trading IPM since LSE cancellation?
THANX FOR ALL THE POSITIVE POSTS HERE. THANX TO EVERYONE ELSE FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS BUMPY SAD RIDE.
NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.you can still trade your shares as usual. if you want to check price,and news, davy.ie, merrion capital.com etc. every stock broking firm in UK is registered to trade in Dublin as well. do not panic sell, at least for now, wait until 19 sept at least
• Preparations for a disposal are progressing well and an information memorandum has been issued. The company has been in discussions with a number of bidders and a second round is now in progress. The company is also separately exploring an IPO route to ensure that maximum value is generated from a disposal. Current deadlines demand that the sale process starts by the end of October, but the company would not be drawn on when this is likely to complete. Persistency concerns weigh on life company valuation • The life company (including general insurance associate) had an embedded value (EV) of €1.8bn at end-H1. This was split between €832m of net assets and €949m of VIF. Persistency remains a concern and reduced EV by €13m in the period; a further €25-50m charge is expected this year. • In addition to weak domestic demand and the impact of a pension levy introduced in H1– which hit IPBS directly by €13m – to fund a jobs initiative budget, the proposals to reduce the tax relief on pension contributions have not been abolished. Perpetual bond to outperform on life company separation • In a separation, the life company would no longer be weighed down by the rating of its loss-making banking parent and would not have to provide capital support. • The EBA stress test results indicated that the bank's deleveraging effort would be focused on 2013. Given that €2.2bn of the group's required €4bn capital raise was dedicated to this effort, the bank should remain well capitalised in the near term.
large volume sold today on ISEQ over 2.1 million. at average 0.029
CVC and Canada life also in the race to buy Irish life unit
had rumours JC FLOWERS has put bid for the Life group of IPM. how far true?
you better be right coz am in here big time now.
do you see private investors winning this case? would the courts be fair in handling this situation knowing the consequencies to the state when sahreholders win.
you said, referring to finance minister that,and i quote "HE CANT TAKE IRISH LIFE WITHOUT COMPENSATION SHAREHOLDERS." do you mind to explain and quote which part of the Financial stability act you are referring to. I believe you are mis leading everyone here. you went on to say, IPM IS DIFFERENT TO THE OTHER TWO BANKS NAMELY BKIR . AN AIB. We all know govt injected billions into AIB when they failed to raise the minimum required by central bank/imf resulting in the shares falling from around 60c to current 7 cents. None of AIB shareholders asked for compensation-why?-because the law is plain simple-capitalise or state will takeover. The same law that was applied to AIB has been applied to IPM. Please stop potraying hope in an otherwise hopeless situation. Monwy has been injected already into IPM and another peace of legislation is required to take back this money-do you see this happening. open your eyes.
please state precisely where the issue of compensation was mentioned. The links you have pasted never mentioned compensation. IPM down 10% are you fooling us?