Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
I've probably not made myself clear enough, I'm not suggesting for anyone especially those who've already lost to buy a similar amount of shares. Whatever you can AFFORD is good.
@astec123 if you read my comments above you'll see that I mentioned that I'm fully aware of South Africa and in fact beyond 1 country. I know how these exploiters work, their techniques are based on bullying. If you just take it then they win, they need to respect you and for that you need to fight back. Also don't forget FJET has planes and it is on them that the fake/unfair and unreasonable transactions are based. FJET has financial problems mostly because of Solenta. Solenta lends money to FJET so that FJET can pay Solenta exorbitant fees. This is not fair or reasonable even in hell
For those who have lost, yes hold or get some shares to protect FJET because as long Solenta doesn't have 75% we're in.
I'd like to emphasize that if Solenta bought shares and didn't disclose then our case is getting better. If they bought shares while or during discussions with FJET Directors or anytime before RNS then that amounts to INSIDER TRADING. Yes a CRIMINAL CASE for which sentences run into several years. Also read on MISAPROPRIATION another criminal offence. Basically we're being asked to rubber stamp criminal activity and pay in the process. The misDirectors seem very dodgy from a FJET shareholder point of view
The biggest mistake some shareholders did was to sell at ridiculously low prices at great loss. Voting against the privatization is in our personal interests but MORE importantly it is in FJET best interests because Solenta has effectively defrauded us and FJET and expects us to wave a happy goodbye. We should hold the shares to make sure a fair price is achieved should Solenta be buying shares to achieve the 75% mark.
Thankfully and interestingly it seems from the volume of shares traded, that NONE of the other major shareholders (5%+ shareholding) has traded their shares. This suggests they'll vote against privatization which is obvious because I don't see them being part of a dodgy private company. If we give Solenta the thumbs up then we're finishing ourselves. It is very important that Solenta fails to get 75% votes because the only left after that is suing them for the unfair and unreasonable transactions. The reported figures of US$160K monthly above fair and reasonable transactions NEED and MUST be paid back. This will IMMEDIATELY sort the financing issue eg 1 year refund is $160k ×12 months = $1.92m. This is almost twice the $1m that they've been using since March therefore should at least last the company March next year.
A United front is important against privatization. We can use minority interest protections for as long as FJET is NOT privatised and as long it is listed even more protection. Directors need sacking as they're representing Solenta interests rather than FJET. To make sure Solenta doesn't instruct the Directors to put FJET in administration, a lawsuit against the UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE transactions will be handy because it removes the protection Solenta is relying on which is its "creditor" status. The "creditor" status would allow it to get the biggest assets, the planes but if the amount is reduced by 80% then they'd be in our position and think properly
Me too
It doesn't matter where the related party transactions were done, in fact its irrelevant. The AIM requirement still stands that related party transactions be Fair and Reasonable. May I say I'm very familiar with legal and financial requirements in South Africa and can 100% categorically say there's no law that permits such conduct. It is their (Solenta) Maltese background that they want to use to extort shareholders.
In summary it seems Solenta (through questionable FJET directors) came up with a fraudulent/money laundering plan to overcharge FJET creating losses in the process and thereby avoiding paying African taxes. The transferred profit (from FJET to Solenta) then landed in the tax haven Malta. In very simple terms, it seems they created related party contracts to siphon/take our money from FJET and negligently or deliberately thought transactions with a 60% shareholder is not related party transactions. Shocking that. Further, those transactions are NOT fair and Not reasonable and NOW Solenta wants to run away with our stolen money.
Maybe it's my forensic Accounting background or maybe this is scheme involving tax avoidance, fraud etc.
"Liberum has not been able to advise that they are fair and reasonable insofar as the shareholders are concerned"
The AIM requirement for related party transactions is that they be Fair and Reasonable, so in effect the transactions did NOT meet AIM requirements as they should for as long as the company is still listed. Solenta was charging 5 times more than the average for servicing planes. This needs addressing/ correcting BEFORE de-listing. Legal action against both Solenta and the Directors: wrong Directors to be specific (because they wrongly directed the company). Directors should be sacked, Solenta related party transactions corrected to meet Fair and reasonable test. This will limit severely Solentas "creditor" claim which they may rely on should FJET go into administration. Once they are in ordinary shareholders position this nonsense threat will vanish immediately. Anyone can start the Legal proceedings for the unfair losses but to make maximum effect the guys holding 5% plus need to be on same side.
They need to be stopped because this practice is not good at all. If people feel the same way, buying even a few shares now will make their voice heard on decision day. Once the de-listing doesn't go through, new Directors in, proper discussions can begin with Solenta with a legal case waiting if they refuse to make their related transactions Fair and reasonable
Agreed, they had total disregard for the AIM rules. How could they suddenly allow bookings upto November and beyond yet forget to issue RNS? In my opinion they knew they were intending to delist so didn't bother following the rules.
It appears there's collusion with Directors nevermind that the CEO is Solenta related. The way the RNS is presented suggests duress to existing shareholders in that if you don't agree de-listing then no funds. I think they're bluffing, they'll provide finance either way. Not for any reason other than the massive loss they'll make if FJET folds. I hope they don't get the 75% votes, then we'll see if they really are prepared to lose the company along with the planes if it goes into administration. They have more to lose, I dare them
The directors whose opinion we're being asked to follow didn't know that trading with a 60% shareholder is considered related party transactions. In addition, they had used their judgement (the same one we're now being asked to follow) and wrongly concluded that the transactions with Solenta were *Reasonable and Fair*, only to be told they were wrong by Liberum Capital Ltd.
Could this have happened in reverse order,
1) they didn't consult Liberum
2) because they knew/should've known that the transactions were NOT Reasonable nor Fair
3) Didn't recognize the transactions/contracts as RELATED party transactions until last week because they'd have been subjected to reasonableness and fair tests and Liberum would have been consulted and concluded they were NOT Reasonable and Fair?
This has had an adverse effect on both company financial position and share price and they want to benefit off it ?????
I smell something