Member Info for Piltick

We need to watch carefully to see who is appointed as receiver by the BoD. I wouldn't be at all surprised if FT knows someone who will look favourably upon him and do his bidding! Incidentally, perhaps we should also consider whether we have a case against the auditors. If it turns out that funds have been syphoned off and booked as construction costs (fixed assets) and if the auditors didn't spot it, then we could have a case against them either as shareholders or as AML.

I can think of two pieces of information that we need, that we cannot get access to as individuals, but presumably it could be obtained by a solicitor acting on our behalf. I'm quite sure there are more things we need access to, but this is what comes to mind a the moment: 1. Register of shareholders, and in particular did Timis and/or any of the directors, sell their shares shortly before the suspension. 2. The PXF contract, so that we can see the details of the security that was given. In particular, did they put up the entire 75% shareholding of the project subsidiaries as security, or was it only a proportion of the shareholdings as required to cover the debt. These are things that I would hope our our legal representative (when appointed) would be able to get hold of.

Although SISG appear to have the right to take control of the Project Companies (which is what they have done) the ownership question has yet to be resolved. Presumably that will have to be sorted in court, but we have no idea when that might be, nor what the outcome might be. The administrator will only be able to sell the balance of share of the project companies (i.e. the mine and infrastructure) once that has been settled in court. This will take some considerable time.

I do agree. I have always felt that there was something strange about the PIs reluctance to say anything about the situation.

I'm still not clear whether it was suspended by AIM or the company.

Tewoo, now there's a thought. I'm sure they have been watching all of this with interest. At one point it looked as if they might put in $990 million for 16.5% of the Tonkolili project, which valued the whole project at $6 billion. That's the same valuation that SISG use when they put in $1.5 billion for 25%. OK, the price of IO was higher then, so the value might have come down a bit, but surely not that much as we're talking about a 60 year life, so a price blip for a year or so shouldn't dent the overall valuation by that much.

Slaughter & May: That takes me back a bit. We used them when we bought a house in Rayleigh in 1976! Anyway, I think there might be a number of miners who could be interested in Tonkilili, but will be put off completely by SISG's involvement, sadly.

Although we, as individuals, can't get to see the share register, I'm sure that solicitors will be able to find a way and of course the Receivers, as well as the SFO. So it will certainly be interesting to see who sold out and in particular WHEN they sold out. That in itself could be an indication of dirty work going on behind the scenes.

I have sent my details to Grant at the above email address. If it's of any use to anyone, here's a template of what I have sent: My name is [xxxxx] Address: [Full address] I hold xxx,xxx shares in African Minerals Ltd. Through my broker,[Broker's name & address] I authorise that ampic et al represent a unified Class Action and I endorse future legal action to recover maximum value for our shares now that African Minerals Ltd. is entering administration. I am willing to contribute towards the cost of legal representation in this class action. Regards, [Real name] [BB name)

BT - SISG's injunction was mostly aimed at the SL companies i.e. the Project companies. They couldn't really use a SL court to stop AML doing anything it wanted to as it is a UK company.

However, that does't stop us going after the BoD as individuals, and Jeferries. The moratorium is to stop creditors etc. from jumping in with actions while the receiver is trying to sort out the company's affairs. We would not necessarily be taking action against the company, but against the perpetrators!

cosimbo: http://africanminerals.boards.net/thread/1/welcome-new-forum

Should we ask LSE to keep this BB up in the event that AML goes into receivership? If we explain that we are using to communicate among pi shareholders, they might leave it up for us. I am happy to contact them, if you guys think it would be the right thing to do.

Not quite sweetielark. The assets we have to be concerned about in the accounts of AML is its 75% share of its subsidiary companies. That's where the value lies for us. SISG are trying to get all of that 75% in settlement of the debt. The court (or arbitration) may not allow that and may say that SISG can only get a proportion of that 75%. That's what we need to talk to the receivers about when they are appointed.

Assets always equal Liabilities in Accounts. It's called a Balance Sheet!

AML is a UK registered company, so I doubt if SL court has the jurisdiction to stop it going into admin. The SL subsidiaries yes, but not the top company.

Yes Gretelle, that's my understanding as well. And I now think it's better that a receiver will be looking after it, rather than the BoD who have screwed it all up. The receiver will have to ensure that SISG don't get any more asset value than is necessary by law, in other words they shouldn't be able to "steal" everything from AML. I would be cautious, however, if PWC are appointed, as they sold LON down the river!

Yes, as MY21 says, we need to appoint a representative to act on behalf of us all and to communicate with the receiver. Any nominations or volunteers?

I don't wish to raise any false hopes, but it has been said on here before, admin is probably the best route for us shareholders. If the dispute about the value of the mine and its infrastructure goes before a court, there is a chance, perhaps, that SISG will only get ownership of a portion of AML's 75%, and if they want it all they will have to pay AML for the balance. Bear in mind that this mine has been valued at $6 billion on more than one occasion in the past. In an RNS dated 26th September 2013: "Under the terms of the MoU, upon successful completion of this transaction, Tewoo will pay to AML US$990m for a 16.5% economic interest in the Tonkolili project based on a project valuation of US$6Bn." OK, the deal never happened, but that was the valuation at that time. Then later, SISG paid $1.5 billion for a 25% share of the mine. So again, the implied total value was $6 billion. So if those extracts are put before a court, then there may be a chance that SISG will not be able to take ownership of all of AML's 75% to cover a debt of only $167. And I think that may be implied in todays RNS.

The injunction doesn't apply to AML, only to the operating companies. So AML could still sell whatever portion of its 75% remains after satisfying SISG's claim. This could theoretically be sold to SISG or to someone else, although I doubt if anyone else would be interested in the midst of this mayhem.