Member Info for Toffers

I think on another share that has a dual listing, the BOD alternate the rns's, so one comes first for ASX and then next time around it comes first for the UK market, that would seem the fairest solution. I wonder, depending on what happens soonest with Newcrest etc, whether SD will attempt to move us as soon as possible on to the FTSE 250?

Hippo, did you not see the proactive article in early 2015 in which Eurasia stated it had two interested parties for MT? 2015! Yet nothing has sold, not even a bean!

They can't sell a bean whilst there are two sets of litigation in play. No one will risk that. And if they lose? lawyers fees for both sides x 2 plus damages which could be colossal, and they have les than $4 mill in the bank, much less than that now I suspect!

what was wrong with Bent? I've seen you lot post far worse at times! Good god, censorship at it's very worst! I did say it was my own personal opinion!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/one-of-britain-s-richest-men-buys-37m-stake-in-takeover-target-thg/ar-AA1aCXJ3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=819749a19b7143f1e82fd4bf037b731d&ei=21

by the way, anyone remember 'riddler'? is he still around?

I don't get the hairbrush, but I might be airbrushed! I'm painting by numbers Mr IKN!

Crikey B1ll, I had to laugh :) :):)

the path has been prepared for the Nomad to walk and the company will de-list, probably before the AGM. Problem is the Nomad should have walked long long ago! Where's Uri Geller?!!!

don't think I disputed actual beneficial ownership, I talked about the dubious term 'beneficial shareholder', and also pointed out about registered owners, which are the brokers when shares are bought in a nominee account.

ha ha!

they want to move the company HQ to a different jurisdiction, that's a totally different entity. They will do a cross listing as the rns references.

the rns states 'cross listing'. A cross listing is a dual listing on more than one exchange.

you mean GrannySnuffer?

this might help. Anyone see where we might be going hopefully?

https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.rio_tinto_limited.330fe33811798914e78a87e0af94bba6.html

for 5 mins on HL. Onwards and upwards.

In a PLC the right of the shareholder exists, but is only to own the share, not the company itself, and they're very different things. Furthermore, the wording of the petition is ambiguous, because it states 'beneficial shareholder', but there is no such legal entity, what you will find for the majority of ordinary shareholders is that they are 'nominee shareholders' as they buy and sell their shares through a broker who creates a company for that said purpose. The registered owner of the shares is the broker who holds them for the benefit of another who is the beneficial owner, not a 'beneficial shareholder'. Anyhow, I'm done with arguing it except to say that legal terminology is key here and my view is the petition will be thrown out for a number of reasons, not least because if your shares are held through a nominee account, then it's for the broker to communicate with the company regarding voting rights, communications with shareholders etc, and it's the broker the company will communicate with if your shares are held in a nominee account.

Yes the registered owner of the shares, but the shares do not entitle the owner to any form of ownership to the company nor any beneficial interest so to speak. A share certificate is just a share certificate. It is a total misconception that shareholders 'own' anything relating to the company they have shares in, the share certificate does not provide any such beneficial interest to the shareholder in the company. The petition states 'beneficial shareholder.' There is no such thing as a 'beneficial shareholder.' On the other hand, beneficial ownership, which does exist, which is a different thing entirely, relates to the person who ultimately owns or controls an asset, for example, a company for instance. Anyhow, I'm not here to row about it, I'm just saying the wording in the petition is manifestly wrong, and so it will get rejected.

It refers to 'beneficial shareholders'. To have a beneficial interest you need to own something. Shareholders don't 'own' anything in relation to the actual company. The petition is flawed!

Same applies to if a company is sued. What then? this is why each individual shareholder would need indemnity insurance, and indemnity insurers to my knowledge, can only assess the situation as it stands at the time of the application being made. It just isn't feasible, people jump in and out of shares like there's no tomorrow, and that is something the directors cannot do. So if you think you can change the law on this, think again, it won't happen! Plus it will introduce the floodgates principle, and Judges will not allow that at all.