We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sunkar | LSE:SKR | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B29KHR09 | ORD 0.1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 1.805 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
25/7/2014 07:21 | 25 July 2014 SUNKAR RESOURCES PLC ("Sunkar" or the "Company") Notice of Annual General Meeting and Operations Update Sunkar Resources plc (AIM:SKR) confirms that, as announced on 30 June 2014, the Annual General Meeting ("AGM") of the Company will be held at the offices of Fieldfisher, Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London, EC4R 3TT on 19 August 2014 at 11.00 a.m. The Company is today posting to shareholders the Notice of AGM and Form of Proxy. The Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 December 2014 ("Annual Report & Accounts") are now available for download via the Company's website at www.sunkarresources. Copies of the Annual Report & Accounts, together with the AGM materials, will be available free of charge from the Company's registered office, namely, the offices of Maclay Murray & Spens LLP, 12th Floor, One London Wall, EC2Y 5AB, for a period of at least one month. As announced on 30 June 2014, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary Temir-Service LLP ("Temir") had some outstanding works under the first earth moving contract ("EMC") and an extension to the second EMC. The physical volumes of the works have now been completed with some finishing works to be performed during the course of August 2014, after other contractors engaged on the same stretches of the railroad have completed their tasks | faza3 | |
25/7/2014 05:46 | Re strange 144,950 shares traded on ISDX but doesn`t give price of trade? Could it be improved offer price if they haven`t gained the 90% | one day soon1 | |
24/7/2014 22:12 | A hostile takeover is impossible here. SAPC can outvote anyone - no matter what. That's why they bought 51%. Since nobody was willing to make a hostile bid when it was possible. Why on Earth would they consider one now? None of the other mining companies showed any interest in buying even a small fraction - or entering into a JV. They knew all along what was going on here - and stayed well clear. | augustusgloop | |
24/7/2014 21:19 | Strange indeed hereford. WHY should anyone be prepared to pay money above the offer price for a share when the only game in town ? for the only offer on the cards ? of a hostile take over bid which is offered above the hostile bid price. | paulb10 | |
24/7/2014 16:08 | strange? Sunkar Resources PLC SKR:LSE Last price at close today was 2.14 volume zero? 0.25 / 13.23% 1.78 / 152.00k -- / -- Day range -- / -- 52-week range 1.00 - 9.10 Vol / Avg daily vol 0 / 221.81k | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 13:37 | SAPC have stated they will be buying shares in the market anyway, what matters is whether you know they have breached takeover rules, in which case William McDonald is the person to contact. | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 13:17 | Between the last vote and now. How many shares have been sold? You can guarantee that these have passed to holders linked to SAPC. | augustusgloop | |
24/7/2014 11:56 | From: Support Group [mailto:supportgroup Subject: RE: re RNS 8686J Mr McDonald William McDonald is the correct contact with whom to raise any concerns about this takeover. Please address enquiries to him via the email above. Thanks. Support Group | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 11:49 | and if Halyk were providing paid for research paid by SAPC or Sunkar, then they are being paid to mislead investors, which must be another reason to look at the takeover conduct. | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 11:45 | I just read those posts, perhaps you are correct, but I don't think that more shares can be issued to the Directors after a de-listing, because the Board recommended the offer on the basis that SAPC would only support the company if they owned 100pc of the shares. And I imagine that if they do not in fact have the 90.08pc that the statements maintain, most small shareholders will have taken this at face value, and sold out. Also it is likely that any remaining institutional shareholders would have been compensated in other ways for selling. Fees for reports, advice, nomad services etc. etc. But if the statement is in itself misleading and the threshold has not been reached, then this must be a subject for the takeover panel to look at and a reason to prevent the de-listing from AIM. | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 11:35 | well that was the information my broker gave me, so if it doesn't, then this is misleading. Also according to the Halyk report which also says the going concern value is substantially higher than the market cap at the offer price - I haven't accepted but I was told that the shares would be bought anyway www.halykfinance.kz/ and they also say on july 18th that over 90pc of shareholders have accepted, but perhaps they are paid to write the reports anyway by sunkar? www.halykfinance.kz/ | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 11:05 | It simply does not, i initially too thought this. Read the posts.... | danandrews | |
24/7/2014 09:48 | They don't yet, but they will soon - because SAPC will exercise the convertible loan note. When they do, this will take it over the 90pc threshold by 0.8pc and the rest of the shares will be subject to a compulsory purchase. | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 09:23 | Hereford review post 8797 and the follow ups. SAPC do not have 90%. If they did all would be over... | danandrews | |
24/7/2014 08:49 | SAPC already owned 51.15% of the shares and the BoARD GAVE their irrevocable undertaking to sell prior to the offer - another 12.27%. Another 19% of the votes were received between the date of the Offer (June 18) and July 8 which makes 81% of the total outstanding shares. SAPC was awarded $1.28mn worth of convertible notes by the board, which when converted, would represent 9.08% of the total outstanding shares, so this brings the total to over 90pc, the condition for a mandatory purchase of the outstanding minority shareholders. It was clearly a planned "fait accompli". | hereford29 | |
24/7/2014 08:24 | What is the possibility of Sun failing to achieve 90% acceptance for the offer and what is the date for this? I for one have rejected offer for 425,000 shares. | oilbethere | |
23/7/2014 16:30 | The problems with AIM are well known, following blog was a good read. hxxp://blogs.city.ac | danandrews | |
23/7/2014 16:27 | Well it is a great shame, for people who want to invest long-term in a viable project and not to simply trade stocks for a profit, cases like Sunkar should be made clear one way or the other. It is very bad for everyone to have allegations of fraud and embezzlement without any action to prove it, because it means genuine companies that are high risk should be avoided, and if there is a serious case of fraud to answer, it is in the interests of AIM to carry out a full investigation or refute all the claims. | hereford29 | |
23/7/2014 16:09 | Hereford, If you look at many of the AIM charts there would certainly have been a good profit in shorting the mining stocks. What is interesting in them is that despite the commodity boom - most of them failed to make any profit. Almost none returned any money to shareholders. All of them paid their Directors for failure. Most of them projected hockey stick increases in profits and production. This didn't happen. | augustusgloop | |
23/7/2014 16:05 | well, from your posts, it would appear that there is more money to be made from short selling AIM stocks than by buying them, at least in mining stocks, since the balance of risk to reward seems firmly weighted in the direction of failure. | hereford29 | |
23/7/2014 15:53 | Re ACHL, It was a few years ago. I think I made a mistake saying OJ It was probably that they claimed to sell more oranges than the entire Chinese consumption. This was not one that I followed closely. But I remember the fuss. I didn't keep track of the links to the official figures. There were several interesting Chinese AIM co claims that were rebuffed at this time. | augustusgloop | |
23/7/2014 15:28 | If that is a serious claim, you should report it to the regulators I think. the advisers would have to at least justify why there was no case to answer or refute it with evidence. Otherwise, it is only speculation. The other explanation is that they just don't know how to run a fertiliser mining company. what about ACHL? You said earlier than they claimed to sell more OJ than the reported official figures for total Chinese OJ consumption, where are these numbers to be found? | hereford29 | |
23/7/2014 14:03 | Hereford suppose you start a company - put your puppets in charge. Sell all your shares (over a period) for about $140m Buy 51% of the shares back for $10m But your puppets give you the money back via the backdoor. Everything looks ok in the accounts But did you really buy these 51% of the shares? At the end, you have both the shares and the $10m back in your account | augustusgloop | |
23/7/2014 13:19 | There are recorded sales in the audited accounts. And the investment by SAPC must also be recorded in the audited accounts. If not, there would be no basis for SAPC owning 51pc of the equity and the takeover offer would be invalid, which would be a matter for the takeover panel. If this was really the case, then an allegation of fraud would have to be investigated, I don't believe it could simply be accepted that a company owns a majority of the shares when it doesn't in fact own them and there is no evidence to substantiate this. Otherwise I could claim to own 51pc. | hereford29 | |
23/7/2014 13:00 | Hereford, in the 2009 presentation (the one that is sampled in the header) they made equivalent claims of orders. They did so year after year. The sales just never materialised in the accounts. They had large orders for the rock. Then it was the wrong type of rock and these orders vanished Then they had large orders for the benefacted product But the orders never hit the accounts [But they kept up the benefication process for years anyway. Then they decided that they needed to mill the product and spent their last $8m building the mill. Then all the orders for this just vanished. It went on and on and on. ----------------- What evidence do you have that SAPC have made any investment at all? I believe that SAPC have controlled the purse strings of SKR all along. If they put money in - it probably came back out to them. Do SAPC (or their mates) have any connection with the Earth moving contractor? They may put the company into insolvency - AFTER selling the asset to SAPC in payment of a loan. | augustusgloop |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions