African Min. Share Discussion Threads

[seanywauny] 05/2/2015 14:37

Anyone care to inform them are much better deals out there?-

[wooster4] 05/2/2015 14:11

windjammer, I'm not calling you a liar, you just don't know what you're talking about.

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 05/2/2015 11:47

Spluttering Cortinas, five years???

[w1ndjammer] 05/2/2015 11:43

someone holding above 10% can stop an outright sale, they can`t stop another party buying 89.99 % but buy holding their 10.09% they can influence procedings

see what happened over at EEL with the pi`s that were holding just over 10%
haven`t looked in yonks but used to be a shareholder MrK was running the show over there and they took on the mighty owando in Nigeria they were holding out for more money been going on over 5 years at least.

WJ.

[casual47] 05/2/2015 11:37

Well, there was the Beacon Hill Resources debacle....

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 05/2/2015 11:34

Fishpie - without a doubt; I've never heard of PIs carrying the day at an EGM. They can sometimes influence things through pressure groups (such as RIG over on Range Resources), but when it comes down to a vote, the big boys will be canvassed well beforehand so that there is no embarrassing slip-up at the Meeting.

[fishyneck] 05/2/2015 11:26

Yes on that basis I would say any offer the BOD deems reasonable will be carried.

fn

[casual47] 05/2/2015 11:16

AIM Rule 15 seems to imply, if I'm reading it correctly, that:

1. For partial stake sale shareholder consent is required -- it doesn't specify a % so should just be majority?

2. For complete sell out there isn't even a vote required for that action, only a vote needed to decide what to do with the monies received?

"Where an AIM company proposes to take any other action, the effect of which is that it will cease to own, control or conduct all, or substantially all, of its existing trading business, activities or assets (including the cessation of all, or substantially all, of the AIM company’s business), the above requirements to notify the action, publish a circular setting out its investing policy going forward, obtain shareholder consent for that investing policy and implement it within twelve months of taking such action, will apply. Shareholder consent for the action itself will not be required."

The top 5 major shareholders have enough shares to have a majority vote. You'd think FT and AW won't put anything forward without checking with them so it all should be done and dusted before we get a look in?

[sapper2476] 05/2/2015 11:15

So, basically if the above vote the same, it is irrelevant what us PI's vote. FT will do the rounds to these prior to any concrete offer, if indeed there ever is one. Heading now towards 3 months suspended.

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 05/2/2015 11:12

1. Simple majority of votes cast.
2. Yes, they do. From chalkminer on another thread today:

Timis Diamond Corporation 42.30m
China Railway Materials Commercial Corporation 41.28m
M&G Investment Management 40.01m
Capital Research & Management 23.01m
Northcroft Trading 21.70m
Franklin Templeton 11.87m

180m out of 337m shares.

[fishyneck] 05/2/2015 10:54

Can anyone tell me how an EGM vote on an offer would work? Is it just simply a 51% majority sees it through or does it have to reach a certain approval figure?

Also do the large holders ie FT, northcot etc hold enough to see this through without PI's having any real effect on the vote?

Thank in advance,

fn

[hdb] 05/2/2015 07:48

Read that cliffs are getting over 90 dollars per tonne in North America wonder why AMI can't tap these higher prices given geography?

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 05/2/2015 01:36

Yes, if onlys....if only the iron ore price hadn't dropped below $90. if only Ebola hadn't become an epidemic, if only....

[seanywauny] 04/2/2015 22:07

This whole debacle would have been so much easier if SISG didn't own 25% of ARPS. :/

[w1ndjammer] 04/2/2015 20:17

casual

admin of individual project companies is not in any ones interest, no matter what their agenda.

lets just paint one picture that could happen, glencore comes along and buys from administrators the rail company. That's all they need to then hold to ransom all the other pieces of the jigsaw.

so no it has to be sold as one AMI

no mention of the word default, in the RNS just that they are in talks with lenders. a full on default would be two fingers up to you jack we ain`t paying .

WJ.

[kirk 6] 04/2/2015 18:46

So will we get the benefits of the London mine in a full sale

[tommy107] 04/2/2015 18:36

I think the deteriorating IO price has affected the chance of a stake sell, I believe that's why a full sell is on the cards and the fact that FT is in HK to try salvage his Marampa

[casual47] 04/2/2015 18:26

The project companies have already defaulted on their loan repayments.

If SSIG refuses to put more money in and AMI cannot / will not find money through selling a stake/all then admin of the project companies is the only way.

[casual47] 04/2/2015 17:40

W -- just google "subsidiary in administration"

[w1ndjammer] 04/2/2015 17:36

The project companys are all under the same umbrella, Can you provide an example where part of a company goes into admin, I cannot think of one.....

What`s this 30p being banded around what percentage of AMI is that for and who is buying it FT or SISG ?

WJ.