Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Does anyone know the Latin for "I sold the product I set out to".
Or anticipating a response from some " I appointed a salesman who sold what we set out to".
Other suggestions?
Hotfinance
That was my understanding too. I took it that the new non exec chairman had grasped the point we only have limited funds so need to prioritise where they are spent.
I understand the frustration. However this has always been a risky share. Huge potential upside with a contract, but a substantial risk. Been in 10 years and that has always been the case.
Let’s look forward to good news by the end of March.
The Orns
My understanding is only the annual allowance. Do check with whoever deals with your pension, as the tax implications are considerable. That's what has prompted me to act.
The Orns
Apparently not directly. It makes sense if you view your pension and ISA as sealed accounts, because of the tax benefits they attract. Hence you cant just transfer shares from one to the other.
I'm having to buy new shares into my ISA and sell share held in my pension to achieve the rebalance.
Whilst I agree with Wonga its a great problem to have,(one day Rodney) the point my IFA was making was if you consider QFI's share price could be multiples of where it is now and you can utilise your ISA, do something about it now, rather than face a 55% hit on any breach of the lifetime allowance.
I haven't yet taken my pension
At this time of year there will always be a number of investors reviewing their portfolio and taking advantage of ISA or CGT allowances, hence the rollovers or back to back transactions, moving shares from one type of account to another.
After a recent review with my IFA, it was highlighted to me that if or when, this share ever takes off I had too many in my pension account. Beware breaching the Lifetime Allowance as the tax rate is penal.
I am attempting a rebalance, but damned if i'm doing it with this spread.
If only there were more folk as altruistic as you PotlucK. Hopefully you’ll be coming up with more incisive comments in due course.
Qfi has always been a strange company. There appear to be few institutional investors (we don’t fit their investment criteria) so amazingly for once the PIs are in control, if only we have the confidence to exert that control.
Resolution 6 at last years AGM must have been a real wake up call to the board. There can be no assumption that a takeover (we haven’t yet gone commercial so it’s pie in the sky stuff) would be just nodded through because they recommended it. I suspect many PIs will be taking more notice of comments on the forum and this bb.
I keep wondering why the bod wanted the ability to issue circa 30% more shares. Had an interest been shown that wasn’t yet RNSable. Something along the lines “if you ever do get these shipping companies/Morocco/Utah/KSA signed up we might take 25%-30% and provide the further funding, so when it happens give us a call”. It’s all pretty irrelevant because there was never a full explanation as to why they wanted the ability to issue so many shares.
As far as a takeover is concerned, when are we at our most vulnerable?My guess is shortly after the first sizeable income generating contract is signed. The position is substantially de risked and many shareholders would be tempted. For what it’s worth I think we will be taken out at that stage, for 50p to 100p, before things really get going.
Interesting to see how quickly we move from “we need a proper salesman” to discussing takeover!
Be interesting to see how it plays out.
Can anyone recall who was donating an old Fiat Punto for the £1 party that was to be run on MSAR? It’s surely rusted away by now.
I guess closing the deal all depends on who you are selling to.
We appear to be targeting multi million dollar companies. I would have thought that means that they have to be confident in the technology and economics of QFI’s product. The technical people, money people and senior management all need winning over.
In Jason and Mike we have two front men who know the product and sector. I’ve always taken it that Jason had the technical background and Mike was the man whose background was putting deals together. I always believed that ultimately Mike was brought in to deal with the sale of the business, which is his background.
What they are not is a couple of double glazing salesmen! That is what a number of the regulars on this board appear to want. Can I suggest that they look for a double glazing business to put their cash into.
If the bod can’t get us over the line it won’t be for lack of effort. This always has been and remains a high risk share.
If any assets are held in FRC, or any other Cayman Isle company, my understanding is that on the dissolution of a Cayman Isle company the assets of the company pass to the Crown under the bona vacantia rule. That would be the position in England where a company is struck off. Are you sure the assets have been transferred and the restructure has been completed?
Why are the directors letting the company we are the shareholders of be struck off, without telling us the terms of a purported reorganisation/restructure, or seeking our approval as the shareholders of the entity affected?
I would have thought they would be doing everything necessary to keep the company alive, pending the successful agreement/approval of that reorganisation/restructure. After that is concluded and our interest in one company turned into an interest in another company, it would be appropriate to get the first company dissolved.
The question I am asking myself is why are they not doing the obvious thing to protect the interests of the shareholders. I am not feeling confident in getting anything back.
I'm looking at the 2020 Companies Act for the Cayman Isles and s168 and 169 relate to failure to file, not preference or misfeasance actions. The quote from the Gazette last night said that the strike off would be under s156 of the Act
"156. Company not operating may be struck off register
(1) Where the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying on
business or is not in operation, that person291 may strike the company off the register and the company
shall thereupon be dissolved."
I believe therefore that any strike off is of the admin failure type, rather than as a result of any action against the company or its officers. As always I will stand corrected if someone can produce other evidence, or show a different Act applies.
I reiterate, if these companies are of any value (and I have to say I've lost track of events as I only come on here occasionaly these days) the directors in Huston need telling urgently. Most Companies House reminders go to the registered office of the company or an agent of the company. with the chaos that surrounds FRR my best guess is that the current management may not be aware of this.
I recall that there is a shareholders group and that they have at various stages communicated with the company and its directors. If you consider that there are any assets in these companies, or that they are needed to establish asset transfers, I suggest you ask FRR to confirm that they have taken appropriate steps to file the relevant documents and that the threat to strike off has been removed.
I've been involved in insolvency, as both a solicitor and insolvency practitioner for over 30 years. I can assure you that in that period I've come across no end of directors whose company has been struck off for non filing of returns/accounts. Usually its an administrative oversight, a failure to pay the accountants who often prepare these documents, a change of personnel, or just eye off the ball. Do not assume that the directors in the US are aware of this. Do you think SN monitors the Cayman Gazette?
If anyone has contact details for the back office I suggest they inform them of this. if they are aware nothing is lost. If they aren't (and I doubt they will ever admit it!!) you have done all that you can to keep those companies alive.
There is an interesting contrast between those with concerns on the forum and here. Can I suggest that Lionel contacts the chairman by email and arrange a telephone call with him. If he is that concerned It’s the least one could expect. However I doubt it will happen and we will just get more of his angry rhetoric.
Draw your own conclusions.
Filtered
Pophead
If it's not about fees, or some other reason, why would they want to cease to act on our behalf? If all they are trying to do is negotiate a deal over the other side's fees I would expect them to continue to act as the extra fees incurred will be low.
They don't announce their reason for resigning so as not to prejudice their client's position. I'm not familiar with the Court Rules and Bar Association Rules, but there will be some guidelines as to in what circumstances you can resign and what you are allowed to say.
It appears to me that there are two separate issues here.
1. Client/attorney relationship. The current lawyers want to withdraw. Usual reasons for this are fees, or rarely some breakdown in the relationship other than for fees. We don't know whether they have been paid or not.
2. The Plaintiffs have put forward an offer to terminate the proceedings with each party responsible for their own costs. The Defendants have rejected this unless their costs are paid. Which seems a reasonable stance to me.
Looking at this in as simplistic a way as possible it is about lawyers being paid, at the very least the Defendants lawyers.
As someone with a modest shareholding here I can't help but feel we are approaching the end game, one way or another. If Madpunter is anywhere near correct in his value of the prize, then relatively, the level of costs at stake to conclude this matter are so low, I would expect them to be resolved quickly, so that a deal can be concluded. The fact that they haven't is what leads me on balance to consider my investment lost. As there is nothing I can do about it I stopped worrying about it last December.
From Lionel's post of 23.05 last night it would appear we aren't going to have the benefit of his insightful views until Christmas. Shame.
If my memory serves me correctly didn't we used to get similar promises from the Beccles based cruise aficionado?
"Was the RNS on 23 July issued in response to some leaked information? If so have you reported this to the regulatory authorities? This particular shareholder considers that wiping £20m off the share price should have repercussions for those responsible."
I for one am getting rather tired of seeing the phrase "well its AIM" or its the wild west. It is a market with statutory regulation about insider dealing and professional rules for the lawyers, accountants and Nomad. There are rules the authorities just don't seem to investigate and then enforce. In the meantime it looks like the company responded to some movement/tried to head a problem off, the consequence of which is likely to be a more expensive fund raise.
In most walks of life if (and I accept there may not have been a leak, but frankly can't think of any other reason for yesterday's RNS) someone's actions causes others to suffer financial consequences, attempts are made to find the culprit and haul them up before the authorities.
End of rant.
Only positive is that this could be a good buying opportunity but only if it drops below 3p for me.
Fyoz Are you an IFA. If not you seem to have missed your true vocation!
In the Open Offer RNS of December last year they talked about the orderly winding down of the business if funds weren't raised, not its liquidation.
What is of more interest and surely warrants a question on Monday is the funding requirement. Looking at the figures quoted back in December the Company held £2.2m as at 30 June 2018 and was spending £220k per month. On that basis by the end of January there would have been £650k left. So taking a broad brush approach, when the cash reserve is down to three months money the board consider that they would have to commence an orderly wind down.
A key question for me is therefore when do we reach that point again? I suspect it is before the end of October.
However as has been pointed out it was made clear that other sources of finance are being looked at. So there is always a possibility that finance can be obtained. What we need is a trial ( hopefully income generating) or a contract. LTH's have always been aware of this and are prepared to accept the risk. I remain optimistic.
I will however be reviewing my position in June/July if no trial/contract or outside finance has been announced, as without either an income stream or outside finance in place by then, we are likely to be in the same position as we were in January.
Filtered.
In the same category as my Great Uncle who refused to have a television as "it would never catch on".