Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. Watch the video here.
action groups intention was to kill this company and it has achieved it = Incorrect in every way .......................intention was to kill this company and it has achieved it = fill in the blank and is correct in every way. You are entitled to your opinion and feel so strongly about this, you could have set up a vote yes option? Why did you not bother? Were you at the EGM if you felt so strongly about it? Why did you not sell you had plenty of options to? These are questions that I don't need answers to, but you should perhaps be asking yourself them. It wasn't the words of one person saying I'm going to do this and that and do nothing. These were the actions of many people that did want to make a statement to the company and have done. They can live with their actions on how and why they voted, just as you have to live with yours. IMHO
Who spent $80M on the company and its not even at T1? Who is to be at fault for it to have had a MCAP of $120m to slide to $1.5m? Who put "part" company in administration even with offers of funding? Who then sneaked the real value asset out of the company? That wasn't the shareholders action group, they have not taken money from anyone or stole anything. Some of the action group have spent their own money and much time so that shareholders can have a voice. You are included in that statement, here is what you said on Dec 8th so had a choice too. BHR just a thougt 8 Dec '14 has it occurred to anyone that topping up at this low price is the only way to get something back from BHR or should sell and leave it all together... You are a shareholder so have a voice as you had a vote, as you had opportunity to sell so yes you can have your say its a BB. What you may find is that people disagree with that, if you look at the boards you will find majority disagree with that statement.
These are the people dealing with Quindells Class action, and not afraid to have a go at a firm with $377m MCAP.
IMHO you could copy and paste if those are issues you think are valid for you. If you have other issues you could add them or remove some you think are not valid.
If you wanted to report market abuse and FCA, this is an opinion on what it could look like. Its an example if you are unsure what you could write. Contact number for Market abuse 020 7066 4900 market.abuse@fca.org.uk Web http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/markets/market-abuse You should ensure you get a receipt that your complaint has been accepted. Push until you get one from the mailboxes and follow up with a phone call if you have to. TO aimregulation@lseg.com market.abuse@fca.org.uk Subject: AIM regulation and FCA Market Abuse on Beacon Hill Resources. Dear Sir/Madam I would like to register complaints which I believe to fall under market abuse. This in relation to the company listed as Beacon Hill Resources (BHR) details on the company can be found at the following URL http://www.bhrplc.com/ On the 12-01-2015 the company listed part of it was in administration (Note 3). There should be a full investigation into this company on the following grounds. 1:Why did a company that has raised so much money fail? 2:Was the money all wisely spent? 3:Was this company well run considering the funds raised? 4:How did the auditors sign off on 2013 accounts asset values of $55m? 5:Did the Chairman commit any offence in the placing to his Friend Mr Daniel Lark (Note 1)? 6:Why did beacon hill raise money four days prior to a EGM to a friend of the Chairman Mr Daniel Lark (Note 1)? 7:Why was that Mr Lark prepared to pay a premium to the price with less certainty his money would see any return? 8:What was the relationship between the Chairman Mr Farr Jones and Mr Lark? 9:What was the relationship on this transaction that took place? 10:Was Mr Lark underwritten by the Chairman Mr Farr Jones? 11:Did Mr Lark vote at the EGM? 12:If the votes were yes on that transaction what benefit would Mr Lark have? 13:In an article published (Note 2) BHR mention a $1 clause but it is not mentioned in any RNS If this is not in any RNS then is misreporting of information to shareholders. Note 1 http://goo.gl/QE3n1d Note 2 http://goo.gl/Cp3NVR Note 3 http://goo.gl/vHUnZE I look forward to your response on points raised which cover the following. *Suspicous transaction reporting *Market abuse *Code of market conduct. *AIM regulation Please feel free to contact me in respect to any points in this matter. Yours sincerely xxxxxxxxxxx
4:50 - 10:30 Thats a fair chunk of time to this company. The questions shareholders need to ask are all in that bearcast.
Following the appointment of the Administrators, Strand Hanson Limited has today resigned as Nominated Adviser and Broker to the Company with immediate effect. In the event that an alternative Nominated Adviser is not appointed within one month from today, then, in accordance with Rule 1 of the AIM Rules for Companies, the admission of the Company's ordinary shares to trading on AIM will be cancelled. It is unlikely that the Administrators will seek to appoint a new Nominated Adviser in respect of the Company. What it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominated_adviser_%28NOMAD%29 How it affects BHR This says that we have no NoMad and without one on 30 days were cancelled. Note it says that the Administrator will not appoint one so kind of disputes the line Board and senior management will now seek to work with the Administrators and Vitol to maintain the Minas Moatize Mine as a going concern and identify potential acquirers To be a going concern as far as shareholders are concerned would need a Nomad to be able to trade, here there is no interest so no shares would exist or is my take on that line, more than likely a buyer will appear at day 32.
The Nomad has resigned, how unlucky is that? Thats two Nomads resigned now so far, neither giving an explanation or a notice period it seems. Here is a list of all NoMads that provide services to Mining from LSE, are BHR saying that they have not contacted every Nomad in that list and not one Nomad will take on the position? Strange one if true as that's a big list of Nomads at over twenty, I wonder if the company could say which Nomads they have tried from this list and been unsuccessful? http://www.filedropper.com/nomaddownloadcsv
Eric, Hope that you are well and that this RNS hasn't really shocked you in terms of treatment. This comes as no surprise to anyone on how shareholders would be treated, even before the RNS it was the same. I guess it all comes down to asset values this is my best guess on those values and there are still some holes with the variable of the sublease as it is now and sublease as it will be in one quarter x3, plus the and i quote "saleable coal" in Moatize which has an asset worth even $400m at $50 a tonne if we are to believe the figures quoted in RNS and accounts. As people point out it does stink when you look at the numbers. The Auditors will have to look at the numbers and possibly find it as difficult. "The Board does not currently anticipate that the Company's shareholders will receive any proceeds in relation to their ordinary shares from the administration process" Look at the figures and how you get to that conclusion from the accounts, I have no idea. Do we have more debt than actually is disclosed is 30m or 40m, hence the boards refusal to issue a "no comment" at the EGM on asset values? Minas Moatize values $10m USD CHP construction cost (@) $21m USD in terms of a Rail stock? $xxm USD in terms of sublease for current capacity 0.5mt $xxm USD in terms of sublease for upgraded capacity on line in Q1 1.57mt basic? $415m USD Minas Moatize Mozambique 1.8mtpa + 8.3Mt saleable coking coal $50 Mt (#) $4.08m USD Changara mine Mozambique (with the 2M write down already added) (#) $9.2m USD Arthur river Tasmania Magnesite, with $42m "potential" $xxm USD Arthur lyons Tasmania Magnesite? $xxm USD Beira Rail sidings? $xxm USD Port allocation and stockpile? $185k USD Trucks and plant (#) $501K USD fixtures and fittings (#) Source (#) 2013 accounts (@) 2012 accounts Coking coal price is circa $110 MT for Moatize value in resource, say $50 Mt as a guess. Accounts say we have 8.3MT of saleable coking coal, so have to factor it in. say $50m assets if you exclude what those assets have in the way of resources or potential. This excludes changara as no one knows what is there, but has a value either way even if its for a theme park and shopping centre as thats a lot land at 184km2.
He did deliver but got his figures wrong it should have been Friday, old habits die hard IMHO. Some of the why's used from miningmx on why BHR is like it is. It's the coal price. It's the shareholders. It's the legacy debt we were left. Karstel attributed a 30% decline in Beacon Hill’s shares last year to inter-party violence The only company not to make a bad decision on record, that's BHR for you a school of excellence and compliance Not many companies can boast $231m to 1.5m, that is an impressive achievement by any standard. Well done you.
It snowed here so my internet is up and down at the moment. RNS no shocker, with last weeks leak to shareholders, as of Feb 2013 we 100% own MML If we own MML then we own the assets connected to them, as i read it as its 100% Unless there was some deal we also were not privvy to post that date, but don't see any asset disposal RNS? http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/mobile/news/detail/11502757.html Feb 2013 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REVIEW OF OPERATIONS Beacon Hill, through its wholly owned subsidiary MML, 100% owns and operates the Minas Moatize Coal Mine in the Tete Province of Mozambique. Frances, I wish you would stop with your rubbish, Duxi was the guy you insulted for bad spelling last week.
" Beacon Hill is focussed on communicating effectively with the Company’s shareholders, giving them ready access to balanced and understandable information about the Company" Do you think anyone knows where these documents are in the company or no one has access to them?
To do anything you would have to get a response from the company. The company appears not to want to acknowledge shareholders, see the miningmx interview from the CEO. He is angry but as many have said that do actually own shares, welcome to the club. Lets see if your angry too after reading it.
At a guess this is where most shareholders would feel let down, transparency. The $1 clause being yet another example, on top of the share purchase pre EGM and voting figures possibly is not the best way to win your shareholders over. Discussing matters with a media site adds to that lack of transparency ten fold.
As its an opinions board. Why rush a four day super placing and for a strange amount to vote no? No shares held before that vote, I don't remember reading anything about Toni and Guys diversifying into coal projects in the media either, unless it was some snippet in some salon based magazine? With no real interest why would you vote against your old time college friend, especially if your in regular contact. Makes no sense to unwisely invest 56k for forty eight hours to have zero return on a no, it would look really odd. As voting figure breakdown was never published breaks the tradition of transparency to shareholders. Its all very peculiar withholding those figures more so as they are reported in RNS and even to web based media in their articles. Shareholders may be correct that that vote was nowhere near as close as reported. What is more strange is that the company governance on communications policy says this. " Beacon Hill is focussed on communicating effectively with the Company’s shareholders, giving them ready access to balanced and understandable information about the Company" The figures have been requested and the company for some reason will not release the breakdown so we cant see how that balance is on the figures that miningmx and mining weekly seem to access to. no access as opposed to ready access which looks to be against what we say we do in company material. Coupled with the time taken out for miningmx, it might be a good site to bookmark as they seem to be able to have access that information that shareholders do not, including time from the CEO. It may be any news is done via a follow up interview. Sadly mining weekly couldn't get hold of BHR top brass to confirm if that story is true or false in miningmx. Rowan Karstel, CEO of Beacon Hill, said in an interview this week that he intended to make an announcement in about 10 days so "shareholders have line of sight". The firm, which mines coal in Mozambique, has enough cash until mid-January. Next week we wait and see what that RNS or follow up interview says, there should be one in theory unless the article has misquoted the CEO of the company or the CEO has the figures wrong.
Duxi, Lets see what next week brings as we haven't had any official date yet, or anything official. This is just what was in miningmx that a ten day window take off a few days for article so should put us in next week. Who knows what will happen or has been happening.
Duxi, I have no idea. We do know that we only have funds till roughly Friday. As the SP has been in suspension since 17Th December means if a rabbit is pulled out of a hat, it needs to be pulled very fast and hard, if the CEO's comments are to be taken as that is all we have in a time scale. What do shareholders know, less than miningmx do it seems. Lets see what happens next week.
This is possibly due to the announcements getting through that the dilution is not taking place. Some people got corporate actions last week on this and others received them in December after the EGM. With the company due to be ceasing operations by possibly Friday, my view is that they wont lift the suspension. Even though there is no reason for the suspension to be in place guess that the idea is to keep it in force right to the final solution, what ever that solution is. Keep your eyes peeled on miningmx as the chances are they will know before shareholders will.
Tiff, Wasn't aimed at you, recently there are people with more focus on spelling and grammar and chasing litigation ambulances, so you have to remind people its an opinions board. Yep, fully agree, same as this meeting no figures were declared and that's never normally the case. Last roll of the dice let down by support else where that was promised, either way you wont get an answer. que será, será as they say, go with the one that makes you feel better ;-)
Opinion only, and if there is a spelling mistake or grammatical issue I'm not that fussed. Insurance policy perhaps? If the resolutions would have gone through the suspension would have been lifted, without haste. At a guess someone thought that the 56K buy was going to change that, unless they had an indication that they would get support and they didn't get it, remember no actual figures have been seen yet. From what we have read it was close, but really was it that close would be one way of looking at it. Also a reason to keep the actual numbers quiet as well as it would look damaging. The buy could have been a gamble that would have been enough had the support come through, just to bolster it lets be fair 12% is a fair old number in a vote. A heads up perhaps, but does show shareholders were transparent with the company on which way they were going to vote on the day and fair play they voiced a concern that the offer would leave them with next to nothing. For people to be that committed to stopping that vote on throwing their lot in shows that people have had enough. They could have even given staged warrants to existing shareholders at 12 & 18 months for supporting it. Something to perhaps not undo that dilution but return cash back later based on us getting to T1. No concessions for private investors but that whacking great 88% concession and warrants for Darwin. Why was the money not spent on getting the wash plant up and running first to T1? Why waste time and money on a rail you cant use as you don't produce then hide how much its bringing in? Why not sell some of the assets in Tasmania, even if it keeps the company going? Why not stop taking a salary for a few months if it keeps the company going? Why did the directors at the company not listen to shareholders and treat them as badly as they did? Why is the share suspended, no one knows? Why was it suspended no one knows? Who knows how decisions are made in Beacon Hill, what seems fairly straight forwards rarely is and week after week always left more questions than answers, that's not really the kind of investment you want to have on your books with secrets on asset values, strange buys before an EGM, hidden clauses, no comments given etc. This company had the potential to be so very different, like anything the concept might have been spot on but without the right people delivering that concept to fruition can go horribly wrong hence we are where we are. So many why's and questions will perhaps remain unanswered, although they shouldn't. Ed Winter the CEO of Fastjet will respond to a mail sent and often at strange hours, David Lenigas also while at Fastjet as the chairman took a salary of $1, yes that's right one dollar. Some people out there will make sacrifices for shareholders when its needed, as shareholders will make sacrifices for companies, when it becomes a regular ritual on sacrifices for shareholders is a different ball game.