google.com, pub-7842875684800919, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

Tag: Jub Capital

  • Open Letter to AAOG & Finncap (Nomad). Who the F**k are Oxford Energy Ltd?

    Open Letter to AAOG & Finncap (Nomad). Who the F**k are Oxford Energy Ltd?

    On New Years Eve 2019 an RNS landed, when I say ‘Landed’ I actually mean it was forced (greenmailed) out of Anglo African Oil & Gas (LON: AAOG), by a group of what can politely be described as ‘Corporate Bullshiters’. The RNS went on to explain a ‘proposal’ to basically buy all AAOG (Riverfort) at 1p per share and £5,000,000 of funding. That information, that was forced out of Anglo African Oil & Gas, caused a huge spike in their lowly Share-Price.

    That rise, along with the buying of stock previous to the RNS release and the subsequent selling of the stock needs to be investigated by the AAOG Nomad. And here’s why.

    The Group who made the offer are headed by Mr Adam Dziubinski of the one man band, or is it 2? Brokerage Jub Capital whose history is one long story of ramping stocks on social media, email, twitter and private message groups then selling out on the quiet, leaving mug punters holding the very stock that Jub sell. Jub Capital is well known to me and every serious trader/investor. Mr Dziubinski is a known corporate flipper of stock on the Alternative Investment Market. He has no oil or gas experience. None whatsoever, unless ‘flatulence’ qualifies to go on a CV.

    What in my honest opinion is happening here is nothing short of farcical.

    Questions need to be answered by Jub Capitals’ Mr Dziubinski as to the veracity of their proposal, which has fundamental ‘SkoolBoy’ flaws in it. Are Finncap, shareholders and the BOD of Anglo African aware that:

    Oxford Energy Ltd has no cash whatsoever, no office, no assets and has no experience in O&G other than the word ‘Energy’ in the companies name?

    Are they aware that Oxford Energy have no accounts and are in the process of being Struck Off as per United Kingdom companies house gazette notice?

    How can a company that’s a piece of paper, with absolutely nothing, zippo, no accounts, no cash and in the process of being Struck Off be allowed to claim in an official RNS that it’s going to pony up £5M? It is farcical in the extreme….

    As for the proposed directors coming on the Board of AAOG. The appointment of Alex MacDonald and Matt Thompson that in itself is no less farcical.

    Oxford Energy Ltd…. No Accounts?!?

    Thompson has three directorships showing. The (soon to be struck off) £100 Oxford Energy Ltd. Adventure Power Ltd, 18 days old, value £100 and the creme de la creme 20 day old Grosvenor Energy Ltd. Value? £2…..

    While ‘Old’ MacDonald has one directorship and 1 share in? Yes you’ve guessed it Grosvenor Energy Ltd. The £2 company.

    These are serious failings on the veracity of this ‘groups’ proposal. One has to ask what the fook Align Research and Richard Jennings are doing teaming up with this crew?

    As for ShareProphets & Tom Winnifrith **it’s a case of too much cooking sherry over Xmas! How could TW fail to spot such a pig in a poke? Particularly as he’s well aware of the historical Pump & Dumping of Jub Capital…. And Dziubinskis’ use of Chris ‘Oil’ Williams’s funds. The majority of funds currently on deposit within Jub Capital belong to Mr Williams. Indeed Chris Williams ‘IS’ by de facto a major shot caller at Jub Capital in all but name. Without his money they’d be struggling day to day. I don’t need it confirming but I can say with a degree of certainty that Mr Williams will have been approached re AAOG funding pre the forced RNS…. Take that as read!

    I’m a substantial shareholder in Anglo African Oil & Gas via Sefton Resources. I look at this proposal as both a CEO and a shareholder. How in Gods’ name can a struck off Oxford Energy take a loan out of £5,000,000 secured on 100% of the shares in AAOG Congo? Oxford Energy don’t own AAOG Congo. It is farcical.

    It’s all about one thing and one thing only. Jub Capital and their cronies using AAOG as a vehicle to dump artificially inflated stock on you the Lumpen-proletariat.

    ‘Party boy’ Broker!

    The Tilapia asset is in deepest, darkest Congo, central Africa. Pray tell share-holders Jub Capital, exactly what’s your experience in organising an O&G drill in Africa? The Congo is a dangerous country to operate in. It’s to the credit of AAOG that they got as far as they have. You need to be able to operate , organise and communicate with various factions within and out of Government. Capabilities that this ‘group’  doesn’t have and never will have. Going on the piss in the flesh pits of Bali, Thailand and Mexico, to name but three of the recent haunts Dziubinski has rocked up in, is yet again indicative of the farcical offer. Zero experience.

    So in a nutshell the choice for the Board, shareholders & Finncap the Nomad is which company or group are best able to deliver some value back to Anglo African Share-Holders?

    1/ Zenith Energy a proven, albeit, small, producing oil company that operates the largest onshore oilfield in Azerbaijan by cumulative acreage who also have a Production Sharing Agreement with the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan (SOCAR). Zenith are a London standard listed Company with a medium to long-term credit rating of “B+ with Positive Outlook” issued on October 9, 2019 by Arc Ratings, S.A. And a “B+” with Stable Outlook debt issuer credit rating issued by Rating-Agentur Expert RA.

    OR

    2/ The tiny P&D Brokerage Jub Capital and its cronies such as Oxford Energy a company with no O&G experience, no assets, no cash, no accounts, a nominal paper value of £100 and due to be Struck Off within weeks?

    There are a myriad of Serious questions not raised in my article, to be asked and answered here by the Nomad Finncap. This Open Letter has been emailed to them. I trust that they will now follow up and as they say ‘follow the money……’

    It stinks!

     

    Viva

     

    Dan

    **NB. I’ve altered this joke as I’ve had a complaint (Over-Reaction) from Mr Tom. 

  • Breaking News! Beaufort Securities. PWC Confidential Letter To Clients!! The Gory Details….. In Full!!!

    Breaking News! Beaufort Securities. PWC Confidential Letter To Clients!! The Gory Details….. In Full!!!

    Further update on client recoveries and distribution,
    client data notifications (GDPR) and cessation
    of ISA manager status
    Private & Confidential

    To the Firms’ clients

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Beaufort Securities Limited (“BSL”) in administration; and
    Beaufort Asset Clearing Services Limited (“BACSL”) in special administration
    (together the “Firm(s)” and the “administrations”)

    We are writing further to our notification of appointment of the joint administrators dated 15 March 2018, in order to provide a more substantive update on the work we have been undertaking, the preliminary conclusions that we have reached and how we currently envisage being able to commence distributions to clients.

    Events leading up to the Firms’ cessation of trade

    Due to the circumstances surrounding the insolvency of the Firms, the appointment of the joint administrators occurred with very limited notice, which was unavoidable. Consequently, there was no time to make any plans as to how the disruption to clients might be minimised and the return of client assets could be expedited. As clients will be aware, BSL was (alongside certain other parties) charged with securities fraud in the United States of America. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) had also imposed various regulatory restrictions including a prohibition on all investment activity immediately prior to the Firms’ insolvencies.

    Prior to the administrations, the Firms had submitted to the FCA, on a routine basis, various regulatory confirmations regarding the status, quantity and amounts of client money and client assets held by BACSL. We have examined these regulatory confirmations and they have provided an important starting point for the joint administrators to review and assess the sufficiency of the client money and assets held for clients as compared with what is owed to them. They do highlight some relatively modest deficiencies in both client money and client assets. The Firms had, however, sometime previously switched over to a new accounting and record keeping system. These issues, together with the complex nature of the administrations, may create further challenges in the tasks ahead of returning client money and assets to clients.

    Steps taken immediately following the joint administrators’ appointment

    Immediately upon our appointment, as we have previously advised, we took steps to safeguard the Firms’ data and systems as well as their assets (those held for clients and their own). We have materially reduced the scale of the Firms’ operations and brought in relevant experts to assist us in the conduct of the administrations.

    We have also secured funding to ensure that all critical operations can be maintained in order to facilitate the return of client money and assets, in accordance with the proposed courses of action set out below.

    Preliminary conclusions

    We have carried out a full assessment of the Firms’ records, which enables us to reach the following preliminary conclusions:

      • in the absence of a surplus of funds within the Firms’ segregated resources and in accordance with governing legislation, relevant costs will need to be deducted from clients’ entitlements to client money and client assets.
      • client money and client assets were, as at the date of administration, substantially complete save for a very small number of isolated deficiencies.
      • a large number of the client securities are made up of illiquid or potentially nil value positions which will complicate the basis upon which costs may be levied against them.
      • in view of the issues identified, we have reluctantly ruled out an expedited return of assets without the statutory protection offered to clients and the joint administrators through a formal bar date and distribution plan.
      • a distribution plan is being developed (see below) as a matter of urgency and a realistic timeframe to commence returns for the majority of clients will be September 2018 at the earliest.
      • the FSCS will aim to make compensation payments to a client population who had only small client money balances with BACSL during May 2018.
      • the basis of allocating costs is also being developed and is likely to be levied by reference to value of the client portfolio and charged on a sliding scale (so that higher value portfolios will contribute more in absolute terms but proportionately less of the overall value of their portfolio of client money and client assets).
      • with a majority of clients likely to be eligible for Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”) compensation with shortfalls and costs falling within the £50,000 compensation limit, we believe the substantial majority of clients will recover their portfolios in full in due course.
      • we do, however, estimate around 700 clients with client money and client assets together valued in excess of approximately £150,000 may experience a loss on their entitlements in excess of the FSCS’s £50,000 compensation limit.
    • clients who do not fulfil the FSCS eligibility criteria will not be entitled to receive FSCS compensation and will, regrettably, face a loss on their client money and assets.

    Revised estimate of securities value

    The indicative figures first published as to the value of the securities in the client assets portfolio have now been subjected to an initial independent valuation. This has highlighted a number of important issues, including as noted above the fact that a number of highly illiquid and potentially nil value positions are held. The carrying value used previously was based on a historic price which we do not believe appropriately reflects a more cautiously assessed valuation. The more conservative value for this assessment is in the region of £500 million.

    Corporate actions

    We have put in place new interim arrangements to manage the portfolio of custodied assets for corporate actions arising since our appointment, be this receipt of dividends or otherwise. We will provide an update at a later stage on our plans for dealing with clients’ accruing interests.

    Clients owing funds to the Firms

    A number of clients are indebted to one or both the Firms. Those amounts will need to be collected from the relevant clients as part of the client assets distribution programme referred to below.

    Access to the Firms’ Client Portal

    Shortly after our appointment, we suspended access to the Firms’ online Client Portal. We are in the process of updating the Firms’ records for the work detailed above and making other necessary changes to it. Once these are complete, we will provide access.

    Plans for distribution programme

    FSCS summary and overall client outcome

    Irrespective of the method of allocating costs among clients, it is clear that clients will face shortfalls as a result of the Firm’s insolvency and ensuing special administration. In accordance with applicable legislation, however, we have worked closely with the FSCS and are able to confirm that, where clients have client money and assets held with BACSL with a shortfall (including reserves for costs) of up to a value of £50,000, the FSCS will seek to provide compensation to eligible clients without it being necessary for a claim to be submitted in most cases. Further information on FSCS eligibility is available here: www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/eligibility-rules/.

    Proposed distributions

    We are developing on an urgent basis two strands to an overall programme of distributions:

      • We have worked closely with the FSCS to identify approximately 2,700 BACSL clients who held client money only, each of whose claim is less than £2,000 in value. FSCS will aim to compensate these clients in full during May 2018, without the clients having to submit an application form. No reserves for costs will be deducted in this context. FSCS compensation will compensate these clients in full, and they will have no further claim against the Firm in the special administration. A notification will be sent to qualifying clients separately. This notification will include details of the cash sum to be returned along with limited bank details (if any) and affected clients will have an opportunity to reject the distribution or notify the Firms of any amendments. (Any rejected claims will be deferred for distribution under the distribution plan described below); and
    • A statutory “distribution plan”, pursuant to the applicable insolvency legislation, designed to facilitate the return to clients of the balance of the client money and securities held by BACSL, running alongside a process of returning client money not covered by the distribution referred to above.

    The applicable procedure laid down for the distribution plan by the relevant insolvency legislation entails the joint administrators:

      • Firstly, setting a bar date for claims in respect of securities: That bar date will be set by means of a notice currently expected to be distributed to all clients during May 2018. We presently anticipate that the bar date will be set for some time in June 2018. Under the applicable legislation, the effect of the bar date is that claimants who submit their claims after the bar date are not guaranteed to have their claims taken into account when distributions are effected, albeit the joint administrators will in any event take into account clients’ entitlements insofar as they are reflected in the Firms’ books and records. When notifying clients of the bar date, we will explain how clients can access a portal on the Firms’ website, designed to show clients what the Firms’ books and records show their entitlements to be, so that clients are in a position to submit any corrections or other information or documentation that they consider the joint administrators ought to take into account, prior to the bar date.
      • Secondly, preparing and circulating to clients (and the FCA, among others) a document setting out how they propose to go about returning the client securities in BACSL’s possession: This will be a detailed document and it will take some time to prepare. We set out below some of the substantive features that we currently expect it will have.
      • Thirdly, seeking and obtaining approval of the above document from the creditors’ committee: The joint administrators will be circulating details of an initial meeting of creditors and clients of BACSL. One of the purposes of that meeting is to constitute a committee, made up of creditors and clients of BACSL, which can then represent the wider constituency of creditors and clients during the remaining course of the special administration. It is a requirement of the applicable insolvency legislation that the statutory “distribution plan” be approved by the creditors’ committee, prior to being put into effect. Following the constitution of the creditors’ committee, therefore, there will need to be a meeting of that committee during which the joint administrators’ proposed distribution plan is considered and approved.
    • Fourthly, seeking and obtaining the approval of the above document from the court: It is a requirement of the applicable insolvency legislation that the statutory “distribution plan” be approved by the court, prior to being put into effect. Following the approval by the creditors’ committee of the draft distribution plan, therefore, the joint administrators will need to make an application to court seeking its approval.

    As noted above, the statutory “distribution plan” applies to securities, as opposed to client money. In practice, however, in order to expedite the process of returning clients’ investments (of whatever nature) to them, the joint administrators are planning to deal with client money in parallel with the process for returning client securities. That parallel process will also entail the setting of a bar date and may also involve one or more applications to the court for approval of particular aspects of the process.

    These procedures are important for the following reasons: if cash and/or securities were to be distributed to those clients to whom the Firms’ records indicate they are owed, without these procedures first having been implemented, it is possible that competing claims (not reflected in the Firms’ books and records) could subsequently be asserted by clients or other counterparties of the Firms; and that those asserting such claims might contend that the earlier distributions of securities ought to be disturbed, or that client money already distributed ought to be recovered from the clients to whom they were originally paid, for the purposes of meeting the late claims.

    In the circumstances, a significant advantage to clients that will be secured by the joint administrators following the procedures set out above is that, once clients receive their cash and/or securities from BACSL in accordance with such procedures, the applicable insolvency legislation expressly provides that such distributions cannot be disturbed by late claimants who later assert that they were entitled to share in the relevant stock lines and/or cash pool (e.g. the clients will receive good title to the securities).

    As appears from the above, however, the statutory process is necessarily complex, involving as it does a number of steps, including one or more court applications. There will inevitably be material costs associated with this process and such costs would ordinarily need to be paid for out of client money and assets, though the FSCS may be able to provide compensation in relation to the resulting shortfalls of eligible clients. The complexity, as well as the timeframes specified in the rules themselves, will also mean that there is a certain amount of unavoidable delay associated with the return of cash and securities.

    The joint administrators currently anticipate the statutory “distribution plan”, and their parallel plan for distributing client money in accordance with the applicable rules will involve, among other things:

      • A transfer for clients holding client money (who have not been compensated by FSCS in relation to a small client money balance) and/or client assets up to a certain limit to a nominated regulated broker. We are in the process of identifying a recipient broker and will communicate directly with those clients included within this programme. A client will be able to nominate another new custodian but that may delay the eventual transfer depending on the circumstances at the time. This is a complex exercise to arrange and execute. We anticipate, however, that it may in this way be possible to effect returns to a majority of clients by number and value. We have explored the possibility of effecting such a transfer outside of the statutory process described above (with a view to effecting it more quickly than will be possible within the confines of that process), but we have reluctantly concluded that such is not practicable or, in any event, in the interests of clients, particularly in light of the point made above as regards finality once distributions have been made (i.e. clients receiving good title). As it is, the joint administrators hope that a transfer of this nature may be achievable September 2018 at the earliest.
      • A plan for effecting distributions of all remaining client securities and money, possibly involving further bar dates and/or the liquidation of unclaimed or other client assets. Given that the clients and/or the assets to which this part of the overall plan will apply will be those giving rise to complexities of one kind or another (failing which they would have been included in one of the other methods of return referred to above), it is likely that this part of the process will be time-consuming and therefore the relevant returns to clients will inevitably take place at a later date than those referred to above.
      • A methodology for levying costs against client money and assets and as noted above this is likely to be by reference to value and charged on a sliding scale. Costs will need to be assessed on a prudent (high case basis) and allocated against portfolios valued on a conservative basis. The methodology will need to offer alternatives to avoid assets being sold to settle costs (which may need to be carried out as a last resort) and also set out how any rebate for costs will be returned to clients once the final costs have been settled and value of illiquid and potentially nil valued positions finalised.
    • How the Firms and clients will interact jointly with the FSCS in order to streamline claims for shortfalls arising on their client money and securities interests through costs levies or otherwise.

    Regulatory matters

    We are working closely with the FCA regarding the distribution of client money and assets. All distributions will be subject to the approval of the FCA.

    As part of the above, we will be seeking various “know your client” information and documentation. We shall provide guidance where specific actions on clients’ parts are needed.

    Other claims for compensation

    We are aware of some 700 claims against BSL by clients for compensation in respect of various matters, including poor investment advice. It is possible that further claims will be made and we will (as appropriate) develop a programme for dealing with these in due course. As regards what (if anything) relevant claimants might recover in respect of such claims, we note the following:

      • Distributions (if any) to ordinary creditors of the Firms through the insolvencies are likely to be minimal.
      • Clients of BSL who believe they have a claim for example in relation to negligent advice can submit their claims via the FSCS online portal at www.fscs.org.uk/your-claim/ with any compensation being capped at £50,000 per investor. This is separate from any claim the client may have in relation to a shortfall in client money or assets that were held by BACSL, where there is a separate £50,000 cap per investor and the FSCS will seek to compensate eligible clients without the need for an application to be submitted.
      • Existing claims against BSL being adjudicated by the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”) are expected to be transferred to the FSCS. We understand the FOS is in the process of writing to all affected clients and will need client consent for this transfer to occur.
    • Once the FSCS is in receipt of the files, it will contact affected claimants. If a claim is accepted, the FSCS will pay compensation and will take an assignment of the claimant’s rights against BSL and any third party. This will enable the FSCS to seek recoveries, including from BSL’s Professional Indemnity Insurer, and there is no need for clients to seek their own recovery against the Professional Indemnity Insurer. Any recovery of insurance proceeds is likely to be limited.

    Individual Savings Account (“ISA”) notification

    We set out below formal notification to ISA clients.

    In accordance with the ISA Regulations SI 1998 (No.1870) (the “ISA Regulations”), we are obliged to notify you that BACSL has ceased to qualify as an ISA Manager effective from 1st March 2018.

    Ordinarily, individual ISA account holders are required to transfer their account to another ISA manager within 30 days of this letter to preserve the ISA status of their assets. However, having regard to BACSL’s special administration, HMRC have agreed to relax such a deadline in order to preserve ISA status. You therefore do not need to take any action at this time.

    As soon as any client money and client assets are ready to be returned to you, you should be able to validly transfer your ISAs to another account manager, but only after the joint administrators have quantified all of the assets held by BACSL, and the FCA have authorised the transfer of such assets. Further information will be provided shortly.

    On commencement of the new tax year, 6 April 2018, you should be able to open and pay into a new ISA with a different ISA manager subject to your individual circumstances. However, please note nothing in this letter is intended to constitute UK tax or planning advice. It is recommended that you seek independent advice where required.

    We will continue to keep clients informed on progress through the website and targeted communications.

    Yours faithfully
    For and on behalf of the Firms

    Russell Downs
    Joint Administrator and Joint Special Administrator
    Acting as agent of the Firms and without personal liability

    Appendix

    Client Data Notification (GDPR) 

    Russell Downs, Douglas Nigel Rackham, and Dan Yoram Schwarzmann have been appointed as joint administrators by the High Court to manage the affairs, business and property of Beaufort Securities Limited. Russell Downs, Douglas Nigel Rackham, and Dan Yoram Schwarzmann have also been appointed as joint special administrators by the High Court to manage the affairs, business and property of Beaufort Asset Clearing Services Limited.

    The Administrators and Special Administrators act as agents of the companies, without personal liability. All are licensed in the United Kingdom to act as Insolvency Practitioners by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. The Administrators and Special Administrators are bound by the Insolvency Code of Ethics which can be found here.

    The Administrators and Special Administrators are Data Controllers of personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998. Personal data will be kept secure and processed only for matters relating to the appointment.

  • Reabold Resources. Placing Ahoy!

    Reabold Resources. Placing Ahoy!

    It’s not looking good for holders of Reabold Resources (LON: RBD). News has reached ‘Yours Truly’ from strong City sources of an orchestrated ramp & dump, pre an imminent Placing. Of course they’ll now deny it and maybe they’ll put it back a week or so. But placing they are…..

    Yes folks there’s a placing on the way for a minimum of £2,000,000+. In fact they need £4,000,000 just to stand still. (Explained Below). I’ve been watching the order book price action over the last fortnight which tipped me the wink that some thing was afoot. On research now undertaken, sources and I mean multiple City of London sources have confirmed that there’s a placing on the way! Which is why some of the ‘choice’ P&Ders are quietly off-loading their positions in-order to reload up in the placing. And make no mistake a placing IS coming! If you don’t believe me then ask the one man band bullshitter Adam ‘Dubious‘ of Jub Crapital the sacked broker of ‘Lord’ @ChrisOil or the House Broker ‘Turner you over Holy Pope’. As a matter of fact ask each one of them to sign a legal binder that RBD aren’t placing. You’ll get the usual ‘corporate waffle’. That’s because they’re selling! Why? Because they’re organising the placing!

    Now that’s not to say that Reabold don’t have potential, I tipped them on J&H and if you’d have listened to me then you’d have made good money. They have a decent story but that story is deliberately being used to sucker in the gullible to keep the share-price up so that they can get away another placing. Well that’s just not ‘cricket’ in my book….

    The last half-yearly report stated RBD had cash in hand of £353,000. The new team of Stephen Williams and Sachin Oza raised a further £5,720,000 in 2 placings ( £3.96M & £1.76M ) which fleshed the company coffers out with circa £6M in cash. In November 2017 £1.5M of that cash was quickly gobbled up via a 35% stake in the private Oil company Corallion. Following on from that in December 2017  a further £1.5M was gobbled up in an ASX listed company called Danube Petroleum to buy a stake of the Parta Gas project. It’s the worst kept secret on the London Alternative Investment Market (AIM) that they’re also looking to bring in another asset, which if they run true to form, will cost £1M+  if we consider the same level of investment in this new asset at say £1.5m that leaves cash at hand of £1.5M. Now don’t forget that the Colter drill is being touted for April 2018. The rig for that will wipe out the cash. Indeed the deposit will do that in itself. Placing.

    KILLER THAT NAILS IT!

    The killer fact that nails the placing is thus: Corallion are currently in the City of Mammon trying to raise between £3.5M-£6M to fund drilling of their UK license P1918 which includes the “Colter” asset. If Reabold don’t want their 35% stake heavily diluted then they will have to come up with at least £1.6M-£2.1M in cash to keep their 35% stake of Corallion and the assets. This would then leave Reabold with a negative balance of -£590,000!

    PLACING

    Answer. A Casino! Where the House (Corporates) tell lots of lies…

    Common sense dictates that to keep the lights on with say £1m cash at hand Reabold will need to raise at least £1.6M that’s before any cash calls from Corallion or Danube for project development and cash calls will come. Placing. To keep the company progressing its investment opportunities the company must raise £4m! Which is why they’re secretly trying to keep the SP up. Expect lots of ramptasic horse shit with denials from paid promoters. Then a placing.

    Shares are trading circa 0.65p which gives a market cap’ of just over £10m.  Cash raised will have to be at a discount which is par for the course on the AIM Casino. That means a potential whopping 20%-40% discount to current levels.

    Sell & buy back in the Placing. Because that’s what the P&Ders are sneakily doing!

     

     

    Viva!

     

    Daniel

  • Sula Iron & Gold. Placing’s Aplenty. Another One On The Way?

    untitledIt’ a sorry tale I tell this afternoon on Sula Iron & Gold (LON: SULA).  Sula are a serial failure who over the many years have never attained anything of true value for their share-holders, other than continual dilution and placing after placing. In fact they are little better than a Lifestyle company. I have more gold on my little finger than this lot have ever produced.

    Investors need to be aware of exactly how the Board operate and how they continually raise cash and dilute to keep the lights on. Take for instance the recent placing on 10th March 2016. Billed as an existing Institutional/Cornerstone Investor taking yet more stock. We are told in that RNS that the ‘Institution’ also took part in the fundraising in October 2015. How much of the 166,666,664 shares issued in that placing wasn’t disclosed nor indeed was their name. Take a bow Jub Capital. Who in the March 2016 placing took Jub118,750,000 new ordinary shares at a price of 0.16p per Subscription Share. In addition to 65,312,500 ‘warrants’ were also granted at a price of 0.16p per share. Now fast forward to 24th February 2016 placing.  A placing of 181,250,000 new ordinary shares of 0.1p each in the Company at a price of 0.16p per Placing Share. In addition to the Placing Shares, 90,625,000 warrants were also granted to placees at 0.16p per share. How much stock Jub took in the 24th February 2016 placing again isn’t disclosed nor again are they named. What we do know is that they took part.

    Adam
    ‘Socialite’ Adam. Institutional Trader NOT Investor

    The majority of that stock taken in the above three placing’s has been quietly drip fed into the market and unsuspecting retail investors. And will continue to be sold down. I spoke to the head honcho, ‘Dashing’ Adam Dziubinski, this morning. He confirmed that his company/clients now hold approx.’ 80 million shares. Which begs the question; Just how many shares have they sold into the market? They took part in at least two/three placing’s and have been and continue to quietly off-load Sula shares. You maybe wondering with such a large chunk of Sula why no notifiable RNS has ever been issued. I’ll tell you. The ‘Institutional/Cornerstone Investor’ purchases the stock and splits it into batches under notifiable thresholds for themselves and their ‘Clients’. All quite legal, but extremely disingenuous. This allows them to sell without having to notify via RNS.

    Jub Capital are NOT a cornerstone Investor they are trading the stock at each and every opportunity, to make their margins. That isn’t investing it is trading/flipping, below the radar and should be disclosed at the time of their purchases. i.e. they have bought them to trade NOT invest! The playing field needs to be levelled. It is Institutional trading NOT investing and should be declared as such.

    In the space of approx. seven months the Sula CEO Nick Warrell has raised ‘in discounted placing’s’ £1,500,000 and if my sources are correct they will place yet again in the not so distant future, probably after the City boyos have sold out their ‘Institutional/Cornerstone holdings’! That placing will again be ‘discounted’. If their share-price stays were it currently rests the placing price will be circa 0.10p.

    Fore-warned is fore-armed.

     

    Viva!

     

    Dan

google.com, pub-7842875684800919, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
Verified by MonsterInsights