Member Info for Professor1

Correspondent banking relationships and sterling payments
The Regulations prohibit a UK credit or financial institution from establishing or continuing a correspondent banking relationship with a designated person if the UK credit or financial institution knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that the correspondent banking relationship is with a designated person.

This prohibition applies to correspondent bank accounts held by UK credit or financial institutions in any currency.

The Regulations also prohibit a UK credit or financial institution from processing a sterling payment to, from or via, a designated person, or a credit or financial institution (domiciled anywhere including the UK) owned or controlled by the designated person, if the UK credit or financial institution has reasonable cause to suspect that the sterling payment is to, from or via a designated person.

This prohibition applies to payment chains or third party payments.

Other financial and investment restrictions
The Regulations prohibit a person from directly or indirectly dealing with a transferable security or money market instrument if it has a maturity exceeding 30 days, and was issued after 1 August 2014 by:

Sberbank, VTB bank, Gazprombank, Vnesheconombank (VEB), Rosselkhozbank (as listed in Schedule 2)
an entity incorporated or constituted in a country other than the UK which is owned by one or more of the five banks listed above
an entity acting on behalf of or at the direction of those five banks named above or an entity incorporated or constituted in a country other than the UK which is owned by one or more of those five banks
It is also prohibited for a person to directly or indirectly deal with a transferable security or money market instrument if it has a maturity exceeding 30 days, and was issued after 12 September 2014 by:

OPK Oboronprom, United Aircraft Corporation, Uralvagonzavod, Rosneft, Transneft or Gazprom Neft (as listed in Schedule 2)
an entity incorporated or constituted in a country other than the UK which is owned by one or more of the six entities listed above
an entity acting on behalf of or at the direction of those six entities named above or an entity incorporated or constituted in a country other than the UK which is owned by one or more of those six entities

"What does administration mean for a creditor of the company?

There is an automatic moratorium which means that it is not possible for a creditor to bring or pursue legal proceedings against the company or its assets (paragraphs 42, 43 and 44, Schedule B1, IA 1986). For more information on the statutory moratorium, see Practice note, The statutory moratorium in administration".

It is possible to ask the administrator or the court for permission to bring proceedings against a company that is in administration. However, a creditor who has a monetary claim is unlikely to be granted permission; it is generally only claims that have a proprietary nature that are allowed to continue".

UMMC DO NOT HAVE PROPRIETARY CLAIM

Hi Khelder

No worries, thanks

Hi Kheldar

Am I correct in assuming you will be writing on this point to the Administrators. If so, many thanks in advance.

Kheldar

This is in my view great news for POG. The Administrator s will have to take into account all the relevant facts at their disposal and this new information cannot be ignored.

As for UMMC, it is their bad intentions of acquiring POG on the cheap and making all of us here suffer has well and truly backfired - Any gain on bad intentions at the expense of others never pays

Good luck to all of us here

I have 434258

https://www.india-briefing.com/news/rbi-notifies-new-framework-to-enable-international-trade-settlement-in-indian-rupee-details-in-brief-25484.html/

JUST FOUND THIS WHICH OPENS UP TRADE WITH RUSSIA

https://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/rbi-allows-settlement-in-rupee-to-settle-trade-with-russia-sri-lanka-122071101185_1.html

although the company is perfectly capable of being rescued, a decision has been made at the highest level, outside of the control of the BOD, not to do so and instead put the company into administration SIMPLY to demonstrate to the western governments that the result of their actions is causing a loss to the people of the UK and not to the Russians as intended. The Russians are getting a pretty good press coverage for the MPs to see unless they don't read newspapers.

https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/smes-directors-shareholders/shareholder-and-member-services/shareholder-rights-and-remedies/?utm_term=shareholder%20unfair%20prejudice%20claim&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKCAjw_b6WBhAQEiwAp4HyILwwrfwtFTPTe0PHYD21iY7XhYOsZ101wcf3RNaAh0ouJLwt-eBcXRoC9KwQAvD_BwE

- Have the directors really made efforts to sell the gold in the overseas market to generate cash which can be used to pay off the loan? - see point which follows

- why is the BOD not making progress on the export licence, they are completely silent here BUT WHY?

- Why have the BOD put the company into administration but they want to be the buyer of the assets

- why did the biggest holding BOD transfer his holding from one being held by the company to one held personally directly just a few days before the company is put into administration?

- Does the above move by the BOD create a personal advantage for the largest holder and indirectly help him in buying the assets on the cheap?

- what specific things can Pis complain about to the administrators- is there a precedent?

- why were the Terms of the loan not re- negociated?

- what role is the ANTIMONOPOLY playing in all this as UMMC had lodged an application to acquire POG? What was the outcome of the ANTIMONOPOLY?

. How can I enforce my rights as a shareholder?
There are various options, including:

proposing a resolution at a general meeting which redresses the situation
complaining to the police of any criminal acts
using a mediation service to settle a dispute
asking the board of directors to take action in the company's name against an individual director (because generally, the shareholders cannot sue in the company's name)
applying to the court for an order that the company is acting or has acted unfairly (a so-called 'unfair prejudice' action)
applying to the courts for the company to be wound up
suing the directors for negligence by means of a derivative action

Aimtitan

Absolutely spot on

Word 'despicable' in error so ignore

Tomski7

So what if they are in debt. The administrator/ liquidators have a fiduciary duty to obtain fair despicable valuation of the assets from the values. The values will look at this in the context of amounts realised for similar assets in the gold mining world. THIS IS NOT SOME CAR BUSINESS THAT YOU FLOG THEM AT SCRAP VALUE. The COURTS will CRITICALLY look at the valuation and will only allow a sale otherwise they are putting their necks out - remember this is UK COURTS.

I believe, when POG BOD says there are 2 offers, obviously first one must be the extremely watered down offer by UMMC. The 2nd offer may be good but it still is nowhere near the fair despicable value and it is this 2nd offer the BOD want to concentrate on and I believe because they are not nudging the BOD have applied to appoint the Administrators. This, in all circumstances will force the 2nd offer or to improve the offer price nearer to the fair despicable value.

NIT LOSING FAITH HERE AND AS FOR YOU YOU TOMSKI, YOU CAN TWIDDLE OFF

Kheldar

I am assuming they are talking about the mining assets here

Kheldar

The 'Group' includes not just the parent company but also it's subsidiary companies. Therefore the total assets if the Group will always be more than the total assets in the parent company on its own.

https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/duties-of-liquidators-and-administrators-when-undertaking-the-sale-of-properties

FAUR VALUE WILL BE ESTABLISHED

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/peter-hambro-bis-central-banks-are-rigging-gold-market-using-bullion-banks-paper-gold