Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
I believe shareholders agreed it years ago, but the company held off doing it while arbitration was underway.
https://vimeo.com/11305587
Watch and cry (with anger or fun)
I agree Baysil. This is the most certain bet on LSE for a guaranteed profit. Licence to print money. Never mind the politics or the business, follow the money.
The Chairman has a standard defence for this situation, which he has used previously:
" The company is not listed on a recognised UK stock exchange; its shares are quoted on the AIM, which is not a recognised stock exchange". Seems to be true actually.
Like many here I have long thought that the OM award was a given, just leaving the issues of quantum and willingness of Italy to pay up without bailiffs getting involved. I put a trade bet on it as the next best thing to a certainty.
I am no longer sure about that. This last minute review of jurisdiction and role of ECJ has thrown a Spaniard in the Works, with thanks to John Lennon for the phrase, even though Italians are behind it.
If the ICSID Panel agrees with Italy, that is the end of the role of ICSID in Europe. If the Panel agrees with Rockhopper, the European Commission will step in to defend ECJ. It might become a clash of Titans about a matter of principle and survival rather than the merit of the OM case.
I think we might be seeing an irresistible force meeting an immovable object, and the tussle going on for years, with lawyers laughing all the way to the bank(ruptcy) of this company.
"Ombrina Mare" is Italian for "Sea Lion", how apt is that?
There can be no doubt that the directors have walked into a cul-de-sac called Harbour Close.
Councillors are not "paid to do " their job. They are volunteers, elected by their community, and receive expenses for that.
I see that Soutthern Water is being pilloried today for dumping raw sewage in the sea at 57 sites on the South coast.
Another fine achievement by its Chairman, who happens also to be RKH Chairman.
Where there's muck, there's brass eh?
Shareaction and Sharesoc are not one and the same . The former is a policy campaigner, the latter is a shareholder support group.
Glen
That might work, but its climbing Everest
Ralph
That is correct.
Ralph
Brokers are not required to file a TR1
Glen
Interactive Brokers LLC is a USA based broker. The law is different in Connecticut.
I do not believe it is connected to Interactive Investors in UK
The great difficulty with this retail “shareholder action” is there are manifold problems which are probably not surmountable in law.
1. Shareholders, or more correctly “members” of the company have no rights of ownership in the company. There is nothing in CA 2006 which suggests they have such rights. A limited company is a legal person in its own right and cannot be owned by anyone. In 1948, the Court of Appeal ruled that “shareholders are not, in the eyes of the law, part owners of the company”. The House of Lords strongly reaffirmed that ruling in 2003, a judgement the EU’s recent Shareholder Directive echoed. Ownership of capital – in this case, owning shares – is therefore legally and theoretically not the same as ownership of the company.
2. Buying “shares” through an online broker and nominee is a fallacy. You just buy a financial instrument which reflect the value of the shares, but you don’t own them, your nominee owns them, and it is the nominee’s name which appears on the share register.
3. The nominee is an execution only broker who will buy and sell on your behalf. He will vote at general meetings according to your instructions and will give you a proxy letter to attend such general meetings, but he is the “member” of the company. He will not take part in “shareholder action” because he is a disinterested party.
4. The only way to become a member is to ask for certificated shares instead of nominee shares. That way, you end up on the shareholder register and can assert the rights of a member under CA 2006.
5. With certificated shares, you cannot buy and sell them at the press of a button, which is why nominee shares are so attractive.
6. I have concluded that I am not a shareholder, but simply a small investor. I am certain that my name is not on the shareholder register and my nominee will not sign any CA s303 requisition because it’s not his job as an execution only broker.
I think its a lost cause, sad to say.
Self confessed attention seeker
Self
SMM
I would have expected a short statement saying " the extended well test at the WNA2 location was completed yesterday and initial measurements of gas and liquid flows are in line with ( or exceeded) our expectations. The workover rig and test equipment will be demobilised over the coming days and a full report on the test will be published in due course"
Instead we just see the equipment demob, with no comment from the directors.
A good rule of thumb with small resource companies is that a succesful operation of any sort gets the news out faster than a dog out of the traps at Walthamstow. Here we are with the A2 well test completed by the look of things, and no news.
A fair assumption is that Batman and Robin are cooking up a story with Big Dave on how to spin the absence of a conclusive well test. Watch words are "analysing data", "optimising B2 location", "revising volumetrics" etc.
And a 118 metre column is not the gross reservoir thickness.
The tax on the development carry was worded by FIG as a tax on a "deemed" capital gain . So if there is now a "deemed" capital loss by Harbour walking away, as in any CGT calculation, you offset it, surely?
Godders
I defer to your view on the RKH website, since everything else they are currently saying has little merit.
I would not put much weight on the FIG elections. There are no political parties, just a few good old boys and girls who go through a revolving door every 4 years as MLAs