Member Info for RichTheNewbie

Basically, it's pretty cheeky to use a show of hands, and ignore a load of postal votes, which probably outweigh all the shares held by the directors, and try to push through their resolutions. Unless of course lots of people didn't vote, and there was only a small irrelevant number of votes, in which case the show of hands is fair enough.

It's all of those things.

The new market maker on the book (JBER) in past few days, selling looking like it's increasing, including some big ones, reckon there's a reasonable chance a placing is now being forward sold and has some connection to Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. KG. I assume they can do this under resolution 5 and just need to offer it to PIs at the same price to stay within the rules. Something looks afoot.

One would assume so - although frankly nothing seems simple with the Slovenian bureaucracy :p Actually AST previously have the IPPC granted didn't they, then appealed, and are now having to do extra hoops to get it granted again, due to rule changes. It would seem logical they'd have to do the same. Perhaps it's the local environmental lobby that's the biggest issue.

Do you know if they need a licence to start that plant back up? Would seem logical but I've no idea.

INA wouldn't care as much, as you say, for obvious reasons. They'd probably be more worried about being bogged down in the slovenian bureaucracy. Pretty much everyone else probably would though as it has a big impact on the margins.

same terms = same terms or better (in case someone splits hairs)

Not2sure - the problem is any potential offeree may not proceed further until they get that permit. As without it things are a lot less profitable. They've not been trying to get the permit for ages for no reason. It's important. stockdale - That's not right is it? They could still do a placing can't they? The big dilution has been authorised in resolution 5 - it's just they can't do it without offering it to everyone on the same terms, in accordance with section 561, correct?

How you're not banned I don't know with your tirade of endless abuse.

They can't. That's the problem.

Carrots - I find small AIM resource companies often have a bit less cash than you expect. You COULD be right but I wouldn't be surprised if it was half that either. Especially with the issues they've had.

A couple of million what? Rupees?

parkeg1 - that's not right. Resolution 5 gives them authority to issue over 2.2bn worth of shares. Resolution 6 just gave them the ability to issue a small amount without telling you lot first.

Sneak through the AGM result the moment the market closes. What are they playing at....

RNS=AGM Notice (as they unsurprisingly didn't RNS it :p)

New_2_LSE2018 - If you could stop with your mind-numbingly stupid insults for one moment and read the RNS you'll see I'm right. It tells you the number of shares in the RNS. "The purpose of resolution 5 is to renew the directors' authority to allot shares. The authority in paragraph (a) will allow the directors to allot new shares in the Company or to grant rights to subscribe for or convert any security into shares in the Company up to a nominal value of £1,512,540.46 (756,270,229 ordinary shares), which is equivalent to approximately one third of the total issued ordinary share capital of the Company as at 17 June 2018. There is no present intention of exercising this general authority. The authority in paragraph (b) will allow the directors to allot new shares or to grant rights to subscribe for or convert any security into shares in the Company only in connection with a pre-emptive rights issue up to an aggregate nominal value of £3,025,080.92 (1,512,540,457 ordinary shares), which is approximately two-thirds of the Company's issued share capital as at 17 June 2018 (inclusive of the nominal value of £1,512,540.46 sought under paragraph (a) of the resolution)." You've missed the bit about nominal value. Which was probably designed to fool thickos like you! Looks like it worked.

Look at the amounts they could offer under the resolutions. 6 is inconsequential in comparison to 5. Resolution 5 lets them issue over 2.2billion. Resolution 6 was only 340m without asking.

I think resolution 6 was the curious one to vote down. I think it was the resolution to help facilitate a deal without having to go to shareholders publicly and blow it. Resolution 5 was the massive dilution resolution....which got authorised. Be interesting to know the reasons people voted 6 down and not 5.

We just making up things to ramp now yeah? I heard Elvis was putting in a bid for $300bn.

Doing it by a show of hands would be pretty laughable, with only a handful of people there, and the BoD having hardly any shares, unless hardly anyone had voted by post. Suppose it'd be one way to try to sneak through their resolutions. Was it only resolution 6 that failed and not resolution 5?