Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[bogg1e] 07/5/2014 17:05

Zendo, you can ask at the AGM what occurred. Last year was the 19th june, so only a month or so to go.

[zendo102] 07/5/2014 16:25

The book on disclosing share transactions: Check out Rule 17 and schedule 5 in this document:-



Lance Butler was either a director or significant shareholder when he sold or transferred his shares. The market must be informed. AIM shares registered in the UK, whether their operations are here or abroad, must abide by these rules in order to create transparency and avoid insider dealing.

It is interesting to see who ignores or dismisses this fact.

[cyberbub] 07/5/2014 13:27

I know from plenty of other shares which are foreign based but UK listed, that large holdings are sokd and acquired by foreign investors without declarations. What's the FCA going to do about it, even if they have broken the UK rules?

[superg1] 07/5/2014 13:26

Some analysts have downgraded Sqm, it went down 1.5 percent yesterday.

While looking for Sqm news, I came across this for yesterday.

So one more thorn to add for SQM.

US looking to sue them re water contamination.
Bosses and others facing fraud charges. Chile prosecutors call it the most serious criminal case for a century.

Labour law changes and that threat of a general strike which affects the region where 70 percent of their iodine is produced.


Pomona can sue business for 1920s-50s fertilizer imports

The Ninth Circuit will let the City of Pomona return to trial court with testimony by an expert witness on the likely origins of perchlorate molecules in the city's water supply. The court's opinion said Dr. Neil Sturchio of the University of Illinois at Chicago had offered testimony, based on "stable isotope analysis," that -- in the court's paraphrase -- the "dominant source of perchlorate in the Pomona groundwater is from the Atacama Desert in Chile" and had "the same distinctive isotopic composition" as perchlorate in naturally formed  sodium nitrate fertilizer that the defendant, SQM North America, "imported into southern California from Chile... between 1927 and the 1950s."

In an evidentiary hearing under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the district court had excluded Dr. Sturchio's testimony as unorthodox, taking the heart out of the city's case. The Ninth Circuit, however, found Dr. Sturchio's methods were sufficiently reliable, scientifically acceptable, and capable of being re-tested by others, to make his testimony at least worth hearing.

The appellate ruling further agreed with the district court that the case should not be thrown out based on either the statute of limitations or SQM North America's argument that Pomona's claim was barred by the "economic loss rule" for being insufficiently direct. The Ninth Circuit found Pomona's suit could go forward because the city had a direct enough property claim on its groundwater rights, and a strong enough argument that recent discovery of the problem made the timing of its suit acceptable. The case is City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., at

[naphar] 07/5/2014 13:18

Zendo, how well do you know "the book"?
Does the reporting requirment stand for non-UK residents? I don't know either way, but wonder how it can be enforced for a non-UK resident non-director, and think it might be a loophole in the rules.

[zendo102] 07/5/2014 12:50

It may sum up the relevant information, but where is the legally-required announcement? I generally like things to be done by the book. It may have been an oversight by LB or the NOMAD (in the latter's case they should have known better), but I'm sure many investors would like to know when he sold and at what price. It is of no relevance what happened to the proceeds, just that he sold at a time that didn't take advantage of the considerable inside knowledge that he undoubtedly has. He may not have been on the board, but if we are to believe the suggestions made here that he was still a consultant, then he was still party to sensitive inside information. I hope he didn't take advantage of that knowledge at PIs' expense.

[cyberbub] 07/5/2014 12:48

No I never got a response to my email, but I suggested that someone contact the company or nomad by phone...

[superg1] 07/5/2014 12:42

Iofra

That about sums it up.

It was way back as far as I know and irrelevant re timing other than the ones sold would have been at higher prices.

I'm sure he would have preferred it in the bank than much of it on medical expenses.

[iofra] 07/5/2014 12:27

Gifts to charity which they have to hold, estate planning to trust with beneficiaries beyond his children and some sales presumably for medical expenses.

[zendo102] 07/5/2014 12:27

Diggulden,

You asked if they are classed as working together even when it is different companies offering the bond.

All that needs to happen is that the shareholders agree to work together. This can happen after the bonds are converted.

Also, perhaps LB did notify the NOMAD, in which case it is the NOMAD which is in breach of the rules. What can't be disputed though is that the rules were broken. Shareholders have a right to know. At the moment we don't know if he sold just before a bad announcement. In the name of transparency, this issue should be cleared up to level the playing field for PIs.

[rhwillcol] 07/5/2014 12:17

Thank you, che7win: that looks correct to me.

[superg1] 07/5/2014 12:15

As I understand it, the then nomad was informed, and a large number went into a non profits fund. Some was said to pay for significant medical expenses

The entire picture seems to contained within thought processes surrounding his ill health. So decisions it seems were made with that in mind, hence non profits. I think some have listed potential relevant trusts.

I'm told the nomad put out a circular at the time with some of the above info, so they must have known.

[che7win] 07/5/2014 12:13

Zendo,
It is true that if a group of shareholders is working 'in concert' and they accumulate or own over 30% of the company, then they are obliged to make an offer for the company.

You make it sound as if the owners i.e. we, the shareholders have no say in any takeover price. No shares will "be taken off" me, concert or not, there are protective rules.

I have mentioned before, we now have additional protection since the takeover code tightened last September and convertible loan note holders would have to consult with the UK Panel on Takeovers and Mergers; the key point is the residency test no longer applies.

The concert party would have to pay at least the highest price any member of that party had paid in the last twelve months in cash.

I believe 75% acceptances are needed to approve a scheme and 90% to make the offer compulsory.

[dontshoutatonce] 07/5/2014 12:04

eddyeagle1979 and Chr1sJS I would very much like to know that too. What happened and why weren't we informed?

[eddyeagle1979] 07/5/2014 12:01

Thanks Micro - Cyberbub did you get a reply?

[chr1sjs] 07/5/2014 12:00

Below is current extract from hxxp://www.iofina.com/investors/aim-rule-26:-

"This page was last updated: 28 April 2014

7. MAJOR SHAREHOLDING

The Company is aware of the following shareholders holding 3% or more of the issued share capital of the Company:

Shareholder Percentage
Vidacos Nominees Limited (1)(2) 12.0%
Hanover Nominees Limited 9.5%
Hargreave Hale Nominees Limited 4.9%
TD Direct Investing Nominees 4.5%
BarclayShare Nominees Limited 4.0%
JM Finn Nominees Limited 3.8%
Hargreaves Lansdown (Nominees) 3.7%
L R Nominees Limited 3.5%
Vidacos Nominees Limited 3.3%
Mr. Arron Banks 3.2%
(1) Mr. Jeffery Ploen is the beneficial owner of 9,321,600 ordinary shares in the Company, representing 7.32 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital.

(2) Mr. Lance J Baller is the beneficial owner of 4,500,000 ordinary shares in the Company, representing 3.54 per cent. of the Company's issued share capital."

So it would be interesting to learn from cyberhub if there was a response to the 15 April email to IOF reference L Baller's reduced holding.

[naphar] 07/5/2014 11:55

Microcline 7 May'14 - 11:30 - 20830 of 20832 0 0

Is it not the case that anyone buying over the company must purchase at an share price based on the weighted average of the share price over the previous 6 months? Now anyone know a Philadelphia lawyer to work that out?


No - that's not the case, I don't think. There is a rule, and I forget the exact terminology, that says a buyer must offer at least the highest price they paid for shares in the preceeding X months (IIRC). It's all in the takeover code document and has been discussed on here in the past.

[microcline] 07/5/2014 11:43

eddyeagle1979

ask cyberbub his post - 15 Apr 2014 - 23:20:07 - 19040

[eddyeagle1979] 07/5/2014 11:34

So has anyone officially asked Lance what happened to his 4.5 mil shares and why the sale / transfer wasnt RNSd?

[microcline] 07/5/2014 11:30

Is it not the case that anyone buying over the company must purchase at an share price based on the weighted average of the share price over the previous 6 months? Now anyone know a Philadelphia lawyer to work that out?

[madchick] 07/5/2014 11:24

Zendo, I think they are obliged to make an offer, but IOF is not obliged to accept it. And I believe the majority of LB's shares went into some kind of pension thingy.

[rogerbridge] 07/5/2014 11:21

Che, in three years, I will be expecting good dividends with the cash we will be throwing off.

[diggulden] 07/5/2014 11:18

Zendo, interesting point. Are they classed as working together even when it is different companies offering the bond though?

Also, regarding LB, I have heard that he did notify the company who notified the broker who chose not to RNS it. Not sure if this is rubbish but sounds very suspect to me.

[zendo102] 07/5/2014 10:54

Duggulden,

No, the issue isn't that there will be dilution. The issue is that when shareholders work together ("in concert") and reach a holding of 30% of the company on the AIM market, they are obliged to make an offer for the whole company. At this point the shares will be taken off you for whatever that offer price is. They will benefit from future profits, not you.

Now go back and see how much of the company Stena and Arron hold if the bonds are converted. If it reaches 30%, private investors will be pushed aside.

Certain people paint a very negative conspiratorial view of all this. It could happen, but there are many other factors in play as well. However it is critical to know exactly when LB sold his shares, and at what price. Did he know anything that we didn't know when he sold? Who did he sell his shares to? This is not me casting aspersions, I don't know the man. I do know that he was required by AIM rules to disclose his sale within three days, and he didn't do that. Why not?