African Min. Share Discussion Threads

[seanywauny] 02/3/2015 20:56

Cheers, nothing to get excited about on court day then. Hoped it might have been the judge making a purchase :)Had a dream last night that this whole conflict with SISG was a charade to simply buy time due to IO price.

[casual47] 02/3/2015 20:20

It was a real purchase of someone buying AMI shares on the US OTC market. A blip in the sense that it has no impact whatsoever on AIM listed shares.

The value of the shares is different also so it was a low purchase amount.

The pool of total number of shares traded that way is very small also. Comparatavively to AIM.

[seanywauny] 02/3/2015 18:12

Thanks, so the 150k purchase was a blip?

[casual47] 02/3/2015 17:51

You can buy AMI shares over the counter in the US.

The shares are only suspended on AIM, the suspension doesn't affect over the counter trading.

A bit like if we both had our shares in certificates then I could sell my shares to you.

The full description is OTCMKTS:AMLZF ==> Over The Counter MarKeTS, African Minerals

See also

Note: Although it says "over the counter" it doesn't mean it is a physical transaction -- it happens electronically.

[seanywauny] 02/3/2015 17:47

Can anyone provide a Simple explanation as to what the AMLZF is and what that that purchase of 150k was all about today?TIA

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 02/3/2015 14:27

At this stage I'd be surprised if they aren't all running for the hills.

[casual47] 02/3/2015 13:52

This would be the man to contact should there be no news:

[e-mail] [phone] Legal Counsel



"Kweku Lisk was called to the Bar in 2004 and has developed a practice in corporate law. He represents a number of companies both private and public through to all aspects of their work including employment, contract, due diligence and acquisitions. He has worked extensively with African Minerals (SL) Ltd and African Petroleum (SL) Ltd and is an expert on debt refinancing agreements, mergers and acquisition for major companies. "

[casual47] 02/3/2015 12:22

Still, it appears, not a peep about any of this on Sierra Leone's news and blog pages.

Are the powers that be supressing this?

Curious, given the importance of AMI to the SL economy.

[casual47] 02/3/2015 12:12

Not much of an investigative journalist, though. Just assumptions based on RNS releases. Can't see it keeping FT and Co awake.

Still, nice to have a handy potted history.

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 02/3/2015 12:02

The reporter might do well to double-lock his door when he goes to bed in the next few weeks.

[hdb] 02/3/2015 07:21

Sounds to me that trust between the parties has completely broken down and the only lever that AMI were using was the threat of admin if Shandong did not buy some equity. If there was some trust then perhaps the sensible conclusion might be just to stay on care and maintenance for 12 months to see if the market picks up? Preserve the status quo in all parties interests in the interim ?

[casual47] 01/3/2015 20:25

If you read the RNS carefully then it appears:

1. Shandong is taking AMI, TIO, ARPS and FT to court for non-compliance of the shareholders agreement ("shareholders" being AMI and Shandong and TIO and ARPS being the companies they have the shareholding in).

2. In order to make sure that this runs its legal course they requested the issueing of an injunction to prevent AMI from taking TIO and ARPS into administration as that would effectively void the shareholder agreement.

Quite what they hope to achieve by (1) I am not clear, but then we haven't been given any details. Perhaps it relates to misuse of funds or even fraud? Or maybe it is related to the offtake agreement / "Favoured Nation" clause. And Shandong feel that AMI owe them money and is seeking a court ruling on it to force AMI to cough up?

[casual47] 01/3/2015 20:11

The PXF is against the subsidiaries which are SL companies. This is also where Shandong's 25% holding sits:

"The borrowers under the PXF Facility are Tonkolili Iron Ore (SL) Ltd, and African Railway & Port Services (SL) Ltd"

[hdb] 01/3/2015 20:00

What I don't understand is why the injunction went into Sierra Leone as the contracts were all supposed to be based on English law and English courts ?Why can't they all grow up and sort this out so all parties give a bit Howard

[w0lf0fwallstreet] 01/3/2015 18:48

Going to put a order in for 100k shares tom

[casual47] 01/3/2015 18:03

Putting the injunction aside for the moment....I am puzzled by the RNS comment re. AMI having no intention to seek administration -- it was stated as if it had never crossed their minds and wasn't something they even want to consider. After all this time what other option is there, especially now with the demand for immediate payment? It smacks of arrogance and recklessness, not to mention vested interests. Assuming events don't overtake us I'll put the point again to Murray as he never replied to my last email which queried this point.

Earnest, has any of this been covered in China? I have checked the Shanghai stock exchange news releases of Shandong a few times but they don't seem to have anything of interest in them. Perhaps there are Chinese equivalents to the ADVFN/LSE bulletin boards? Can you read Chinese?

10 years in China....You must be hankering for some nice crumbly vintage cheddar?

[w1ndjammer] 01/3/2015 16:46

Wonder how much they paid for the debt, I would say nowhere near the $163 mill
looks like the likes of glencore were a bit slow out of the trap, if it is that simple just buy the debt, at maybe 50 cents in the dollar. hmmm whats going on here.

WJ.

[kirk 6] 01/3/2015 16:46

Bronco that bull I'm afraid mate. The BOD have totally mislead investors and SISG are stating a breach ? For what I am aware that has not been circulated to investors. The 50m Timis payment is another red flag. If the company was run effectively they would have hedged spot iron. And had mechanisms in place to get through minor blips. This is a huge mine and has a fantastic future.

[broncowarrior] 01/3/2015 13:19

Agreed, get over any idea that SISG are the good guys here.

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 01/3/2015 12:04

Seany - sorry, but if you imagine that cuts any ice in China, you are dreaming. I have spent the last ten years in Shanghai, and I can tell you that without connexions in the Chinese business world, you do not matter a jot to them. And the only connexion we have is Timis, who happens to be Shandong Public Enemy No. 1 at present. As for 'face', in present day China there is nothing that gives the government more pleasure than humiliating the laowai in payment for those humiliations inflicted on China for two hundred years.

[seanywauny] 01/3/2015 11:50

No matter how look at it, if the Chinese take it all here at the expense of shareholders, they lose face.The resonant message we need to portray in their actions is that they're about to rob private investors of their life savings....end of.

[earnestwipplethwaiteiii] 01/3/2015 08:31

Of course the shareholders are wiped out, we've known that for weeks.
More important is whether a concerted legal case can be built against the Board and the NOMAD. To answer that question, Grant's group over on LSE needs to take legal advice. Even if there is a case to be made on shareholders' behalf, it's likely to take a long time, cost a fair amount to pursue and very likely, in my view, ultimately not fully compensate shareholders.