Sunkar Share Discussion Threads

[hereford29] 10/8/2014 13:58

Ask for a site visit, check it out. As a shareholder, you are entitled to one. In fact I recall Donald Sinclair at the 2012 agm inviting anyone that wanted to come and have a tour, he said they would be happy to meet them at the airport. You could take some of the rock back as a souvenir. Is the agm really going ahead? That seems a little strange. Why not raise a proxy to replace the board - if enough shareholders turn up to vote.

[augustusgloop] 10/8/2014 11:55

bogey,

1) not meeting the conditions of the SUC would have meant losing the asset.
They were frequently below the requirements - which meant that they could lose the asset.
This prevented any outsiders from bidding.
SKR knew that the licence would be kept (probably backhanders) and knew that if they lost the asset, it wouldn't.

2) the mined ore is stockpiled in mountains on site.
The question is why did they continue spending on benefacting this when they had no orders for it.
And why did they spend the last of their cash building a milling plant - without ensuring the demand for the milled product?
This forced them into the arms of SAPC.

3) there are many, many frauds that are detected each year (many of which are hushed up) a large fraction of these are audited by 'internationally reputable firms'.

Type 'fraud investigation' into google --- look at the job adverts.
This is a massive and growing industry.

[augustusgloop] 09/8/2014 21:59

paulb,

They have nearly 90% (after converting their loan 9.1%)
So at the moment, there are 20% of the presently issued shares that have not taken up the offer.

Present M cap = about £6 million
20% of that = £1.2m

[paulb10] 09/8/2014 21:45

august "your a weird man yosarian" but I'm listening. where did you conjure this £1.2m figure from.

[paulb10] 09/8/2014 17:20

lets see what happens in order to sell this project on, it needs trust from outside international investors. In any negotiations any outside investor will be looking at any previous investor transactions in the company and how these were honourably conducted. If they see that previous western investors in the company were misled then this from a point of view of SAPC makes the job a whole lot harder. If I were SAPC I would say OK lets get on with it, DO we own 90%, YES. Do we try to screw the remaining 10%, No!, because we decide what happens next, We decide at what price, and at what time, we sell to whoever we wish, and the remaining investors can just accept our decisions. But SAPC will also be mindful of politics and the fact that with such an asset it is important not to be viewed individually or as a region as fair and honest reasonable partners.

[faza3] 09/8/2014 17:01

if someone wants to press civil action against the directors they have insurance and the negligence can be easily proven here

happy to join any actions

[augustusgloop] 09/8/2014 11:46

An interesting thought.

Perhaps they don't want your shares now.
Perhaps they are just going through the motions to make it look like they are doing everything possible to buy the company in a 'normal' manner.

It looks like they will have about 90% if they chose to convert their loan.

But there is still about £1.2M of shares at the offer price that have not accepted.

It will be interesting to see if they convert and force the sale of the outstanding shares - or if the opportunity to skim another £1.2m from shareholders is just too enticing.


We will know soon.

[danandrews] 08/8/2014 21:34

Have you never been tempted to short, your ability to pick out the bad eggs appears rather good.
It will be sometime before I return to AIM, when I do ill be sure to keep an eye out for your distinctive comments. What ever name you may use.

[danandrews] 08/8/2014 20:53

To be fair the later would be more likely. I just hope we get the chance to attend the AGM, be nice to bust a cap in Nurdins ass.

Anyway augustusgloop do tell, why did you ever change your name from ELBAN, REDISIN etc? I always thought your views would have been more credible at the time had you not changed your name so frequently. Your doubt in the board has been right since day one...I give you that.

[danandrews] 08/8/2014 20:45

Who knows.

[augustusgloop] 08/8/2014 20:32

Why would they bid higher now - and have to pay everyone a higher price?

Why not just take the 89.6%, sit on it for a year (providing no information and no dividend) and then offer a lower amount to the hold outs?

Why not just issue new shares to SAPC for a loan in this time and take you well below 10% ?

[danandrews] 08/8/2014 20:19

The incompetence of the management here is as clear as day. Management that even now continue to get paid.

While a very long shot..I do hope next week SAPC that do not hit the required 90%, if they don't I think the chance of a higher bid becomes very likely.

[hereford29] 08/8/2014 20:14

Consultants that are paid by the hour for their reports are not to be relied on, they have a vested interest in producing reports that recommend projects which they can be appointed EPCMs to. Unless you have a qualified and experienced mining project director on the board, with a track record of delivering comparable projects on time and on budget, you will not be able to make the right decisions, because you have to rely on suppliers to tell you what to do. And using local firms to save money is a frequent mistake.

[paulb10] 08/8/2014 19:58

hereford I do not believe the former, this is primarily based on the highly respected consultants reports and the fact SAPC bought back in again and now want and have spent real money to take the company over. Are the management incompetent or extremely skilled at executing long term plans ??? LOL

[hereford29] 08/8/2014 19:17

I did speak to an expert this evening, who told me that either the price of the commodity is insufficient to make the project viable, or the management were incompetent and did not follow best practice for feasibility and economic assessment.

[hereford29] 08/8/2014 13:46

Frank Timis?

[augustusgloop] 07/8/2014 23:59

Skipper,

that's a good example - a total of £700k in fines - when those guys must have made millions.

"The figures were also used in the prospectus for a 2008 rights issue, which raised £200m.

When the actual state of the loan book emerged in 2009, Cattles shares were suspended, and people who had bought into the rights issue at £1.28 eventually received only one penny for each share."

--------------------

So somebody made £198 million out of it.

Without any jail time - were these guys really punished?

[the skipper] 07/8/2014 23:02

'When was the last time you heard of a Director being punished (in any way) for misleading shareholders?'

How about this one then?


and yes, I had the misfortune to have been misled by them too! Let's hope that justice will eventually prevail here.

As things stand at the moment I don't think that I will have the opportunity to air my grievances at the AGM, but that could well change and I would then welcome the opportunity to co-ordinate with other disaffected shareholders.

[augustusgloop] 07/8/2014 22:48

They are not desperate to get the shares.

Their approach has been practical and methodical.

They have made over $100m from this over the years, they are now just efficiently closing it out and hiding the evidence.

As of now, they are beyond the reach of the AIM regulators.
[Not that they were in the slightest bothered by them before.]

They have many options to go forwards from here.
I doubt that any involve paying a higher price for your shares.

There are rules to protect shareholders - but as this case proves, they are never enforced.

When was the last time you heard of a Director being punished (in any way) for misleading shareholders?

Can you think of any that have done prison time for frauds of less than a few £ billion?

Can you think of any at all in corrupt countries?