Member Info for SharketMare

Close to writing off the £5,000 I invested here for around 1.5m shares. Feels like a serious case of 'jam tomorrow' with a BoD who view this as hobby on the side. My money is on Callum Baxter cutting ties with the company before year-end.

Sorry but you are talking complete nonsense. How many transactions have you worked on in your career? There are a number of reasons why any company would appoint lawyers when receiving a proposal. There may be a reasonable risk of the bidder going hostile, for example, which would pose a very different question and force the company to act to ensure its decisionmaking was made in the interest of all shareholders.

On the previous RNS, clearly news of the deal had been leaked to market participants, but this was not limited to Australia. The company's hand was forced in that market - hence the RNS there and not here - because the rules governing the market are different (and stricter).

EyeEarAm, the news wasn't 'leaked' in Australia, it was formally published by the company in response to the share price rising with no apparent explanation. The rules governing the ASX are much stricter than AIM in the UK, and I imagine following consultation with their lawyers they felt they had no choice but to publish an announcement to avoid falling foul of the Australian regulator.

I am backing Dave Lewis to turn this ship around. Expect he will take a scythe to layers of middle management, get rid of the non-core and underperforming brands, and build better relations with suppliers. At the next trading update we'll learn a lot more and I think the market will like it. Let's just hope this nonsense in Iran is passed us.

Https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/bc065ae0-c78b-401c-a3df-a22e0f6d1724

- Over half of BHP's EBIDTA now derived from copper.

- JV with Lundin (Vicuna) expected to cost $7.1bn to develop

Might explain why they have passed up the opportunity here.

Given our CEO's comments and justification for taking the bid, I would imagine the share price would tank 30-40%.

NMM, pretty much everything he posts is written by AI. It's how he is able to post so much long form twaddle saying the same thing in slightly different ways. The 'cadence' or rhythm of the writing is also a big tell.

Rodders, do you write all of your posts on this forum with AI/an LLM? Out of interest, which one do you use?

Tim, respectfully disagree. If the price was above 28p people would be deterred from buying more. At the moment there are willing sellers below 28p, which is why shares are changing hands at those prices.

Because no one is willing to pay 28p or more? Are you sure investing is for you?

Q, if you want to invest in a miner actually going to production, buy ALL. Low cost, green lithium mine powering the revolution you are so fond of. 10p/share is a bargain in my view.

HNY

Fair enough. Well that's that then!

Pbow - I guess this is where our advisors took a look at the book and made a call on whether they would have reached 50.1%. Sangha takes them up to what, 38%, but where is the remaining 12% coming from? Instis?

I think the piece of the puzzle we're all missing at the moment, and what will hopefully give everyone some much needed closure, is why Mather, Sangha (and presumably management), thought the game was up when JCC started working in concert with BHP and Newmont? By what mechanism would that potentially spell a worse endgame for shareholders if management had said, go ahead JCC, buy their shares and end up holding ~33% of the company?

Q, fair play for holding your hands up and admitting you called this one wrong.

As for your theory, as addicknt points out, they've agreed to sell their shares to JCC. For once I think we should all be listening to what the company is telling us and taking it at face value!

Good info, Eloro. Thanks.

Thanks Damers. It does make the percentages shared in the recent RNS somewhat moot as they are of total shares in issue rather than the 87.8% JCC do not own.

Bumping this back to the top as keen to learn how the 75% needed is calculated, specifically whether JCC's shares can be voted towards it.

Sniffer/FTJNY - what have you read that gives you that impression? Please can you share a link. Thanks.

FTJNY, that is not my understanding of how a Scheme of Arrangement works under the Takeover Code (that JCC's shares do not contribute to the 75% needed). Please can you show me where in the TC you are getting that from? Also, if what you are saying is true, are you saying JCC require 75% of the remaining 87.8% of shares they don't own? Again, that is not my reading of the code at all and I have not seen that in any RNS.