Neometals Share Discussion Threads

[pc4900074200] 16/2/2006 10:13

In reply to the previous post it is true that I have had
contact with the FSA etc. and found that giving them
sound proof of under-hand trading still gets shareholders
no help.

I have found that one or two voices complaining get
no-where but I feel that by highlighting facts on the BB
may enlighten others to overlooked events that go on.

As regard my ego, FERNYGRADE knows to his cost as
a previous acquaintance of mine. I speak my mine in all
matters and he also knows that I am not a day-trader but
hold shares long term.

It is not my normal style to reply to personnel comments
made about me, by others on BB's and normally do not
pass comment about others either.

In this case I will make an exception. FERNYGRADE is
probably still smarting at the loss of a good friend and by
passing the odd comment regarding me, probably, boosts
HIS own ego.

That said, the incident is closed and I will not be commenting
on it again or any other remarks about me, which no doubt,
after this, will be posted by FERNYGRADE.

pc

[fernygrade] 15/2/2006 00:02

Adam, pc plod wont go the way of the lse/aim he has been there and done it and knows it is a waste of time.

It boosts his ego to use the boards to reaad what he has written in the belief that he has finally joined the big boys at day trading.

PC there is only one way you can stop them like i showed you with ash shop them to the fraud squad.
f

[pc4900074200] 14/2/2006 16:15

Excellent appraisal of the current position we are in. I see that it has
77 recommendations.

I can see that you have omitted one relevant point. [Not in any way
trying to ridicule a perfect appraisal]. Volvere currently hold
1,162,424 add their CFD of 1,306,600, gives them a total of 27.74%.

The danger of this is that they are only 2.26% away from being able to
place an offer [as the rule's state] for the company.

Yes I hear people say that this would have to be voted on. Fine, but with
a repeat of the voting of the previous EGM. That would be that.

Also I feel concern as a shareholder that they have set-out all these fee's
Etc. Without any consultations with shareholders.

They purport to be Directors of NMT but as also being Volvere holders of
28% of NMT shares. They are bullying their way through what they want.

Peter Gyllenhammer holding 14.6% would be laughed at by the NMT
Directors if he tried to impose conditions, so what gives them the right
without consultations with shareholders to do what they have?

Who as NMT shareholders, are we dealing with here?

Volvere or NMT Directors.

Surely rules are being broken or being manipulated.

Volvere are shareholders not owners of NMT.

pc

[25october1969] 14/2/2006 12:59

For those interested, I have posted my "concerns" here

[adam] 13/2/2006 15:52

Why are you telling this BBS though? Why not contact the AIM team at the LSE and see what they say? It may be that there is a reasonable explanation.

[pc4900074200] 13/2/2006 15:35

Point to ponder?

NMT [Volvere] Management knew one trading day before all other shareholders that there was a major investor buying a large amount of shares which would place them in second place.[shareholding table]

The RNS was delayed until they had issued other information re: restructuring
of NMT and also which is more to the point?

After they themselves had purchased more shares which would place them back in the top-spot.

You could say that as NMT have directors based from Volvere there could
be a conflict of interest here. Which could be used against remaining
NMT shareholders.

pc

[pc4900074200] 13/2/2006 13:26

Hi, 250

I for-got the 30% and then offer for the company.

90% was for a management buy-out.

Question: Is it too late for action group against?

You, PG and all remaining PI's???

pc

Edit: my thoughts are 'Too little - Too late'.

And they know it!!!!

[25october1969] 13/2/2006 13:10

if they go over 30% they have to make an offer.

I cannot say I am impressed with the related party transaction re fees to Volvere, I think you were right all along PC - I hope I can be persuaded otherwise but having my doubts. George Wardale who was appointed a non - executive on Friday had a busy day - he found time to read the Agreement, consult with Shore Capital and then approve it - clearly someone who can handle such a work load on their first day in office will be an asset to the company!

[jurgen klinnsman] 13/2/2006 12:53

they can have all of mine at 250p each.....

[pc4900074200] 13/2/2006 12:52

To buy-out they will need 90% of the shares.

Or do deals with others. See ClubHaus threads.

pc

Edit: Wonder if the 200k were bought on the back of the 160k they
got for the 10p increase?

They will do this each time until they have all others out.

[davidrigby] 13/2/2006 12:30

the way things are panning out volvere will own more than 28% after today's announcements so what happens next
what % do they need to take it private

[pc4900074200] 13/2/2006 10:43

Don't get me wrong. I am pleased that something is now
happening and that there is a direction for us to travel.

At the same time there are bridges that need to be built
between shareholders and Directors and so far the score
is?

Volvere 2. NMT shareholders -1

pc

Edit:

1 being Volvere take-over.
2 Volvere payments.

-1 Loss of shareholder value.

[pc4900074200] 13/2/2006 10:29

Taken from rivaldo's post over on VLE thread?

' - since 26th November (say 2 1/2 months) I calculate VLE will have received around £60k in directors' fees
- as of yesterday VLE will receive roughly £15k per month, or £180k per annum, in Management Fees based on NMT's £6m NAV
- the Performance Fee is 20% in share price uplift. I calculate that every 10p increases m/cap by £0.89m, i.e VLE get say £180k for every 10p uplift. So Friday's uplift alone has got VLE around £160k.'

What should be remembered is that on the Day of the EGM the closing
price / bid was 00:68p / 00:70p. This price has been eroded over the last few months due to no fault of shareholders but by lack of information / direction from Directors.

If the intention was to give shareholders value. VLE would use that
Price as a base for their remunerations to start but by the look of things they have not.

So one could say that they are making a substantial gain on the back
of something that they have created.

IMO, not a good start.

pc

Edit: Did not read anything thing about if the share price drops after reaching that?

Do they pay / give it back or?

[davidrigby] 13/2/2006 08:22

interesting sells just gone through one @3 shares and another @ 27 shares

[srsm] 12/2/2006 11:04

Don't respond to spam. Even if not a scam it will simply encourage more.

[Abuse team] 11/2/2006 23:48

Post removed by ADVFN

[mbaxter] 11/2/2006 21:34

Just been reading rivaldo's calculation of the VLE charge(s) for their hard work on NMT on the VLE thread Rivaldo - 11 Feb'06 - 19:24 - 134 of 136. Worth a look.

[Abuse team] 11/2/2006 09:11

Post removed by ADVFN

[newkid] 11/2/2006 09:01

Same thing has recently happen with BLLM. That is a large buyer has taken a big position in BLLM. Share price has gone up nearly 90% over the last few weeks. If Mr Gyllenhammar keeps buying then it's possible the same could happen here. I hold a small position now but may look to increase if peter keep's it up.

Regards

NewKid

[fernygrade] 10/2/2006 22:20

7245 PC the fact is that all of these RNS of today were known the night before, so ask yourself is it legal or what? really does not take much thinking about does it!
F

[fernygrade] 10/2/2006 22:16

Well it looks like your company is going to be swallowed by Baltimore plc, with Wardale already on board, probably at the behest of his associates at BLM, which meets next week to ratify the tidying up operation being done by Aquisitor and New York Holdings,and the return of Baltimores LISTING TO THE AIM market also scheduled this month or next.

Looks like TERRIFIC bonus is going to the baltimore shareholders.

F

[pc4900074200] 10/2/2006 21:07

Point to ponder??

Having re-read the RNS: Holdings in Company. Issued today?

It is noted that the time issued was 17:47.

It is clearly stated that NMT were notified on the 09-02-06.
NMT having issued 4 earlier RNS's today starting at 11:29 left
this Very important information [a major shareholding position]
until 2 hours after they had informed shareholders of other
business regarding NMT.

There were then several large trades placed after the first RNS's,
that have been deemed 'sells'.

The following question comes to mind?

Would these shareholders have sold if they had known that
there was a new major shareholder in NMT, and were they
at a disadvantage by not having knowledge of that fact at
the time that they placed their trades?

I thought that Directors could not with-hold information
from shareholders if it could affect the share price?

pc

Edit: It could be said that all shareholders that sold today
were placed at a disadvantage. That shareholder RNS
should have been issued at 7:00am. or just after.

[fernygrade] 10/2/2006 19:41

try happy bare! nice name for a plodder

[pc4900074200] 10/2/2006 19:15

Welcome back on board.

May we have many conversations to the confusion
of other's to the origins of PC-49 & pc4900074200.

LOL.

pc

Edit. Dispense with the sn. Post pc. It will add to the confusion.

We know who we are.

:-]

Edit 1: I already have a new thread in the pipe-line.
Waiting for the name change and some more
information before setting it in motion.