NML is due its interrim results now, last year it was the 28th of this month.

They are setting up a new site to explore/research/analyse and all the equipment to do this should be on site now, and drilling should start soon, all this extra news should be covered in the interims.

does anyone have any further positive views on this company ??

Let me say that I have shared this information with both the FSA and the AIM regulation team. They are aware of the seriousness of the implications.

I've also received information from other sources that make me even more concerned, as this does indeed question the credibility and viability of the operation.

I have not had this information verified, but I do trust the source implicitly, as the person has the highest integrity. I will pass this information to the regulators in due course.


The information is not 'inside' and no law has been broken. Therefore, anyone of the shareholders could have obtained this information themselves, if they had done enough research, or contacted the appropriate people. I am satisfied that the regulators are also 'concerned'.

This post was made by me in early March and shows that I deduced (correctly as it happens) that the sellers could have been the Badenhorsts and the Malaysian Bank with the convertible note. We have since seen from the RNS's that the Badenhorsts have 1 million less shares and Al-Wakalah reported 3,333,334 shares less than they were issued with.

Anomalous - 11 Apr'05 - 17:09 - 4322 of 5408 edit
>Andy
I tend to agree with you. There is clear evidence that both last year and this year, someone or some group have been selling into any strength. This is one of the reasons the price has been held back, despite some relatively good news.

We must assume that the seller, whoever they may be, are selling at a profit above 4p, but unwilling to trade below this price. The natural assumption is that the seller is one of the placees. Many people believed and stated this last year, even though we couldn't prove the identity of the individual or group.

There are some disquieting facts though.

1. The volume of sells since the pattern was identified is far greater than 20 million, the total of the placing.

2. The amount sold in each tranche (+100k) is relatively small and insignificant. Which means they may be taking great care not to depress the share price too much. So they can come back for another bite of the cherry a short while later, after the usual BB investors soak up the surplus.

3. The placing was with a number of people. So any coordinated action 'conspiracy' is unlikely. But....

4. The sellers always seem to pick opportune moments, such as the release of good news, to 'dump' another load. Do they know when the RNS's are going to appear? Do they sit there waiting or have they placed a standing instruction with their brokers?

IMO, there is a seller and we can probably identify at least two of them. I say 'probably', because without any clear proof or a statement from them we can not be certain.

The likely candidates for the present sales are:

A) The Badenhorsts - they accepted the shares in lieu of cash. It could be that they need the cash for other purposes. Even if they do know what's in the ground, having such a large shareholding may not have been in their plans. They might be converting some of these back to cash on the market. They are not directors and are only required to report if they are over 3% and cross a whole percentage point. They could easily sell and we would be none the wiser.

B) The Malaysian bank that arranged the convertible loan note - as some have agreed, the bank taking the shares now rather than later indicated that they wished to convert their debt back to cash at the earliest opportunity. It was not a vote of confidence, as the deal would have given them the capital value and the interest, into shares at 4p a year after drawdown.... Jan 2006. So by taking the shares now, they too could be selling some back into the market above 4p and taking a swift profit on any sum over 4p. If they sell at 4.5p, they are getting a 12.5% gain on their investment. If they believed that it would take some time for the good news to come, then this would enable them to reduce the overall risk of some problem depreciating the share price below the 4p conversion price. Again, they would not have to report until they cross a percentage point.

These two are the most likely 'usual suspects'. BUT the one thing that does worry me, is that there was no declaration for the Malaysian bank when they received the +3% interest in NML upon conversion. There was the announcement by the company in the RNS on 20 Jan 2005, but not the proper one required by AIM for notifiable amounts. Now it could be that the foreign holders are neglecting to make their official notifications. Which then brings in the possibility (although remote) that the seller(s) are in actual fact directors.

I believe that a statement should be made by the company about the convertible note shareholder and why they failed to notify as required under the AIM regs.

Of course, Wendy D made this post in return:

wdurham - 11 Apr'05 - 17:55 - 4326 of 5408
Anomalous -
Have you followed up any of that Monroe stuff? If you had been bothered, you would see that the Badenhorsts are probably the very last people to be selling. They have been planning on a move to the C9 area of Angola as mine managers for quite a long time....can you imagine why that might be?

And your logic really is ass-about-face with the bank. No-one takes shares NOW in lieu of debt if they are at the head of the queue to get their investment back, plus interest, at expiry - unless they think the shares are going to be worth considerably more than the debt plus the interest. Because remember, there is no way NML could have just shrugged and said they couldn't pay - the bank would have got theirs.. But as mere shareholders the bank have given up all the rights and security that being providers of finance gave them, and taken their place at the back of the settlement queue along with you and me. So they must have taken the equity now for another reason, wouldn't you think?

But then it suited you to believe that both the Badenhorsts and the bank took shares with the single aim of selling them at the first available opportunity. It suited you to describe them as so lacking in faith that they were not prepared to wait for cash, but wanted a convertible insturment NOW so that they could get their money back straight away, before the share price plummeted and the company became insolvent - or at best, unable to pay them.

Perhaps I should remind you that there is no need to de-ramp any more now that you have bought back?

Wendy D also said this:

wdurham - 11 Apr'05 - 18:11 - 4330 of 5408
Actually my OWN logic is a bit woolly on the question of the finance provider.

But the basic premise remains. If you can convert a debt to equity at a fixed rate now or later - but if you do it later you also get a whole year's interest, then to do it now demonstrates that you believe the share price is going to go up sufficiently to offset the interest you would have earned by waiting for expiry. So whether they sell stock along the way or not, the bank clearly believe the share price is going to rise at least by enough to recoup the interest they have foregone, in addition to any profit they might make. And converting now DOES enable them to sell stock over the next 12 months when the price rises enough to make it worth their while.

So they ARE a candidate for the seller - but having "paid" 4p and a year's interest per share, I can't see them selling at these low levels unless they think 10% profit now is better than 100% profit in 6 months?

To which I replied as follows:


Anomalous - 11 Apr'05 - 18:26 - 4332 of 5408

I don't believe that I am the one that has the situation "Ass about face", it may be you. Consider this:

1. We do know that the convertible note was convertible into shares 12 months from drawdown. We do not know if the company had the option to repay in cash rather than issue the shares. This was not stated in the RNS. So it is safe to assume that the bank was to receive the capital and interest into shares at the fixed rate of 4p.

If the share price was to be so much greater by January 2006, then it would be stupid for the bank to take the shares now, when they would be worth so much more after 12 months. May I remind you what the RNS said:

The Company has also arranged a standby finance facility of up to US$1.25 million by way of a convertible note, convertible into NML shares at 4p within 12 months of draw down. The loan notes will bear interest at 6% per annum. The facility has been established to be drawn down at the Board's discretion should the need arise and will be available for 12 months.

So by receiving the shares now, the bank could be selling at 4.5p for a 12.5% gain, rather than waiting 12 months (at great risk) for a 6% gain. As you know, this company has not exactly shone when it comes to meeting their deadlines or expectations. It is only prudent for the bank to possibly take measures that reduce the risk of not receiving their capital sum back after 12 months. The logic is inescapable that they have taken the shares now to convert as much back as they can with a 12.5% or even 25% profit.

Let me refer you back to the Badenhorst deal:

NML has purchased from the Badenhorst Combine CC of Kimberly, South Africa, its entire working plant of alluvial diamond mining equipment. This is a cohesive unit comprising, pans and conveyors, mobile sort house, excavators, loading shovels, trucks, cranes and numerous other equipment necessary for the mining to commence. It is important to stress that this acquisition is a working plant including mobile workshop, spares, tools and accommodation. This is a key acquisition for mining in remote areas where spares and supplies are difficult to procure.

The cost of the equipment acquisition is US$1.26m. This will be paid in three tranches, US$126k in cash (paid), the issue of 5,040,000 fully paid ordinary shares in NML (US$504k) to the vendors at US$0.10 (approximately 0.055) per share and a final cash payment of US$630k on or before 30th November 2004. This
purchase brings to US$2.0m the total value of diamond mining equipment acquired
by NML since March 2004.

NML will make application for the 5,040,000 new ordinary shares to be admitted
to trading on AIM and admission is expected to occur on 9 August 2004.

The Badenhorsts agreed a deal that would give an initial cash payment (which was paid), a tranche of shares (which was issued) and another and final cash payment (which was eventually converted into shares by the company - probably because the company was short of working capital). The Badenhorsts may not have bargained with having 13 million shares in the company. This is far more than a notifiable amount, even if NML are registered abroad.

The subsequent RNS said:

As a show of confidence in the company's strong future, the Badenhorst brothers have converted the amount outstanding to them of US$630,000 to shares. NML purchased the alluvial diamond mining equipment from the Badenhorst Combine for US$1.26 million. Subsequent to this acquisition the Company engaged the owners and operators of the Badenhorst Combine, Piet and Neels Badenhorst as mine managers and operators.

The Badenhorst brothers are on the mine site in Angola managing mining on a day
to day basis. The issue to the Badenhorst is 8,253.000 at A$0.10 per shares (4p)

So the combined Badenhorst holding was 5,040,000 + 8,253,000 = 13,293,000 shares. The 3% notifiable limit is 4,931,342

I don't dispute that the Badenhorsts accepting shares is a clear sign of confidence in the project. But when they struck the deal, they didn't agree to accept 13 million shares, they only wanted 5 million. So if they did need that cash payment for whatever reason, it would be a natural conclusion to sell some of their holding, but not all of it. They wanted the cash. They got the shares. They were probably advised if they still wanted the cash, then all they had to do was 'mine' the market for the readies.

Lastly, even though I am a holder, I am more interested in the truth, even if it doesn't serve to increase my investment. I accepted the revision of the estimates on the EPD forecast, not because I considered my figures faulty, but because I considered that it is far better to strive for the truth, than to ramp a share, fooling any prospective trader/investor, just to make a quick profit. It is not my style to ramp and lie. I'd rather seek the truth.

I then described and pointed out why the convertible note holder might want to sell now rather than later:

Anomalous - 11 Apr'05 - 18:45 - 4334 of 5408

>Wendy

But the basic premise remains. If you can convert a debt to equity at a fixed rate now or later - but if you do it later you also get a whole year's interest, then to do it now demonstrates that you believe the share price is going to go up sufficiently to offset the interest you would have earned by waiting for expiry. So whether they sell stock along the way or not, the bank clearly believe the share price is going to rise at least by enough to recoup the interest they have foregone, in addition to any profit they might make. And converting now DOES enable them to sell stock over the next 12 months when the price rises enough to make it worth their while.

Your logic is still flawed. Look at these scenarios and see which you think a bank would choose:

Scenario 1. - the current situation
Share Price currently: 5p
Issue price: 4p
Lost interest = 6% profit
Current premium = 25% profit
Net Profit = 19% profit
Can sell at any time to reduce risk

Scenario 2. - the convertible deal
Share Price currently: 5p
Share Price Jan 2006: 12p
Issue Price: 4p
Interest received (in shares) = 6%
Current premium = 200% + interest 6% + premium on 6% = 12%
Net Profit = 218% profit
Can sell at any time after 12 months - but with risk that scenario 3 might occur.

Scenario 3. - Oh dear!
Share Price currently 5p
Share Price Jan 2006: 3p
Issue Price: 4p
Interest received (in shares) = 6%
Current premium = -25% + 1.5% loss on 6% interest
Net loss = -20.5% loss
Can sell at any time after 12 months - but who would want to?!

A short while later I replied to Mclellan about her post. You'll note that I did query the fact that the directors had not notified in December 2004, even though I noted this earlier in the year:

Anomalous - 11 Apr'05 - 19:08 - 4337 of 5408
>Mc
We're not saying it is the Badenhorsts, just that it might be. We're not implying that the management have done anything wrong either. They are only required to make the declaration when the declaree tells them he has over 3%. I'm not saying that the directors are selling without a notification, but merely pointing out that the lack of notifications from them too is also a 'concern'. Remember that the directors did receive shares in lieu of payment. But there was no RNS to follow with the figures. I did query that if you remember. Of course the placees are free to sell when they want to. Anyone is.

Please keep your hat on! We're just debating why there's been no notifications, yet there's been more sells than the original 20 million placing. It could be that some of the 16.5 million placing is filtering in too.

I seem to remember that we were all having a big debate about the mysterious selling back in September and October.....just before we heard the bad news from the company about the delays. This time, we know that good news is on the way. So any selling right now is certainly going to be regretted by the seller in the long term. Unless of course the seller is on some new placing.............................. Doh!!!

This was the first time I mentioned that the company ought to be notified about the discrepancies:

Anomalous - 11 Apr'05 - 20:00 - 4339 of 5408

If anything Fiona, we might be making a quick reminder to the directors to check that they have complied with the regs. I'd hate to think that they ended up paying a penalty because of a missed declaration. It's silly to miss out on it, but even the chairman of Evolution is under investigation for failing to make the obligatory notification regarding Incite Holdings.

Then Wendy D replied to my post about the bank scenarios agreeing with my reasoning:

wdurham - 12 Apr'05 - 07:40 - 4350 of 5408
Anom -
I do accept some of your reasoning re: the bank - after having said yesterday that my own thinking on it was a bit woolly, I thought about it a bit more, and realise that there IS some substance to the idea that they could be taking profit at this early stage. But 16.6 million shares is rather more than 3% - and there has been no notification.

If you review the Badenhorst's recent history, I think it highly unlikely that they would be selling stock at this stage. And they too hold more than 3%.

However, we can all argue until kingdom come, and still have no idea at all of what is going on. If those that OUGHT to be notifying NML of changes in holdings are not doing so, there is little that NML can do about it. They are governed by the rules of AIM, due to their listing on that market. But it still may be that - as in the recent case highlighted by Griffin - certain people believe that as NML is a company incorporated in Australia, they do not have any disclosure obligations towards them.

It is now down to NML to simply get on with the job. Only by producing results of significance can they regain credibility and convince people that the stock is worth holding rather than dumping for 5 or 10%.

I don't propose to argue the matter further - it has no resolution, and therefore arguing is pointless. The various possible scenarios have been put forward, and folk can make up their own mind. 8-)

Here is a post, clearly showing that I was hoping someone would contact the company and get the directors to get their own house in order:

Anomalous - 12 Apr'05 - 18:01 - 4467 of 5408

GayBriefs - 12 Apr'05 - 15:23 - 4442 of 4464
Theres your seller again .
Anomalous - Any ideas at all of how the seller can be identified to try and give us a Fri**ing clue how much longer this is going on.
This anonomous selling stinks can the company be forced to declare whos holding what for example?

Yes - there is a way of identifying the seller. You contact the AIM regulation team and inform them that there are a few notifiable RNS's missing. They'll contact the company for clarification.

But I don't think it's a good idea - because the people that have definitely missed their RNS are the Badenhorsts and the directors. We can't be certain of the identity of the 'businessmen' or whoever is selling. We can not tell if they have more than 3% or have sold a considerable percentage of their holding.

The last thing we want to do is get the management in trouble, just when they seem to be getting it together. That's why I suggested that someone contact them to remind them of their obligations to report. Better late than never.

The AIM may accept that they forgot their new British registered status and obligations. They may be unaware of the requirements, but ignorance is no defence under the law. It can be forgiven if they get it in late and apologise.

NML may have been Australian registered and exempt from declarable notifications before, but they are British registered now and they are therefore obliged to report.

To which Wendy D responded as follows: (I've highlighted the relevant parts in red)

wdurham - 12 Apr'05 - 18:43 - 4473 of 5408
Anom -

"But I don't think it's a good idea - because the people that have definitely missed their RNS are the Badenhorsts and the directors."

Which RNSs would those be?

As I understand it, it is the responsibility of large shareholders to first notify the company of the size of their holding, if over 3%, within 5 market days of acquiring that holding. Subsequent adjustments to that holding must be notified to the company if it passes through a round percentage point in either direction. The company should then issue a UKREG without delay to inform the market of the psosition. If the shareholders do not inform the company, then the company's hands are tied, and they cannot make any announcement.

In the case of the Badenhorsts, the market was notified of the increase in their holding by the company, who had full information as they themselves had issued the shares.

Where directors are concerned, ANY change in a holding must be reported to the company by the director, irrespective of percentages involved, and the company must then notify the market without delay via UKREG. Again, the company advised that the directors of the company had increased their holdings, although this was not broken down by individual, because they were in possession of that information as they had issued the shares.

Finally can someone point me towards the announcement that says the company is now a British registered company and no longer incorporated in Australia?


To which I responded as follows:

Anomalous - 12 Apr'05 - 18:50 - 4476 of 5408
>Wendy you beat me to it.

You are right that the company has to be notified in 5 days and the nomad should make the RNS within the day. It is the responsibility of the individual holder to notify the company, but then the company did issue the shares. The RNS of the issue may not be sufficient, as it does not show the percentage of holding, or the total shares held by the brothers. Individually or collectively, one of them will have more than the notifiable amount.

You are also correct that the directors have to notify any change. But they were issued shares and the distribution was not announced. It should have been. The directors (which must include JC and SH) are personally liable for the failure to announce. So they need to contact the nomad and make sure that everyone (all the receiving directors and Badenhorsts) have been properly included on an RNS. The longer they leave it, the more likely the LSE will investigate and fine. Look at Griffiths and Incite Holdings.

Here again is yet more proof that I requested others to contact the company and get them to put their house in order:

Anomalous - 12 Apr'05 - 18:45 - 4474 of 5408
>Fiona
Seeing that you have a good 'relationship' with SH and JC, maybe you could send them an email about the notifiable declarations issue.

The company issued the Badenhorsts with far more than 3% in January. In fact they have under 8% of the issue. Maybe he ought to remind them that they need to get NML's nomad to do the declaration for them.

The company issued shares to the directors in lieu of payment. The distribution of these should have been announced. If I remember the regs correctly, any change in the director's holdings has to be announced, regardless of how much they hold. I'll start checking the AIM and LSE regs on that one.

You might want to let them know they can still make a declaration, even if they are late, as they do have a good excuse after Griffin.


To which Mclellan replied:

mclellan - 12 Apr'05 - 19:35 - 4482 of 5408
Anomalous- I am certainly NOT going to ask SH and JC about notifiable interests etc. This is an invention of your own and probably doesn't have the least foundation in truth.Again, I suggest that you watch what you are accusing people of.
You just drag up anything you can think of to take a knock at NML, even in your present guise of support.
As for the garbled messages, you are the one that is doing most of the garbling.
Endiama IS the government!..for a start..

to which I replied as follows:

Anomalous - 12 Apr'05 - 21:36 - 4487 of 5408
>Mc
The point is, that if there are missing RNS's, what's to say that the mystery seller is not a notifiable holder. If they are, and they failed to declare, then the person concerned could be looking at a large fine.

We're not alleging that the person is connected with the company, merely that RNS's have been missed. If the mystery seller starts to see notifiable RNS's, then they might realise that they are required to make a notification too. It is possible that they will then make themselves known

In this post, Gaybriefs (another NML holder) reported NML to the authorities before even I did:

GayBriefs - 13 Apr'05 - 09:07 - 4506 of 5408
Right I ve had enough of this pile of cr@p.
Many Thanks Anomalous for your reply,one things for sure I wont be made a monkey out of by the Directors or the Badenhorsts selling.
I will be contacting AIM and the FSA to notify them that there are rns missing re major shareholdings,there are constant large sells hitting the market with no rns and I suspect the directors and Badenhorsts could be selling.
I am also going to contact the press to make them aware that there could be a story here of possible corruption IF (AND I SAY IF) the Directors are selling their shares without informing the market and will start proceedings to have them fined and struck off.


So you can see, that Wendy D trying to put the blame on me is quite ridiculous, because I wasn't even the first person to report them! Gaybriefs followed this up with this post as well:


GayBriefs - 13 Apr'05 - 09:24 - 4512 of 5408
Youre wrong both of you it is a legal requirement to inform the market if you are a director if you buy or sell shares this is FACT.
READ both of you what I write especially you itd they wont be countersueing me because I havnt accused them of anything you idiot.
Unlike like the pair of you who obviously just like to sit on your backsides and watch the sp collapse and do nothing .Im not and I intend to launch an enquiry as to who is selling that is my right not illegal nothing wrong with that so how are they going to countersue me itd .?As I said directors who sell shares and dont notify the market are breaking the law and can be fined and struck off from being a director again once again FACT.

Yet again, here is another post that shows I discussed the situation with Mclellan:

Anomalous - 13 Apr'05 - 10:45 - 4520 of 5408
>Mc
You are correct in stating that we don't know if it is the directors that are selling. There is abosolutely no evidence of this. Also, there is no proof that Cross and Healey actually have shares. Mind you, the company did convert directors expenses on 30 December 2004. So it is a reasonable guess that they converted some of theirs into shares.

It would be a mistake for anyone to accuse someone specific of selling shares without anything to back up their claims. What we do know though, is that there has been some missing RNS's. The bank for one and the directors (that converted expenses) for the other.

I've just found out that Australian law governs the declarations. NML has changed name, but not registered in the UK. Therefore, the notifiable percentage is 5%. This effectively lets the Badenhorsts off the hook. So long as they evenly split their holdings under 5% each, they do not have to make a declaration.

However, the regulations re directors are the same as the UK. So apparently the directors should have announced the change in their holdings after the 30 December. Furthermore, the Malaysian bank that converted the loan note is definitely in breech of Australian regs, as their percentage is just under 10%.

This is the first post by Wendy D, where she disputed that there was any problem with the declarations:

wdurham - 13 Apr'05 - 11:46 - 4541 of 5408
" What we do know though, is that there has been some missing RNS's. The bank for one and the directors (that converted expenses) for the other."

I'm getting fed up with this. Why are these UKREG statements "missing"?

The full number of shares issued for the convertible drawdown was announced by the company on 20th January.

The full number of shares issued to directors in lieu of accrued fees was announced by the company on 29th December. Those accrued fees were spelled out, by named director, in the Annual Results published in November. They relate mainly to the non-execs. Shares were issued at 10 to the A$ on the outstanding amounts.

The full number of shares issued to the Badenhorsts has been announced by the company, on 4 August and 29 December.

The AIM rules state that the AIM listed company must disclose such information, insofar as they have it, without delay.

They did.

Where is the problem?

So you can see, Wendy D denied that there was anything wrong. If this was the case, why did the company HAVE TO ISSUE an RNS? Furthermore, why did they have to issue another the next day, when the first one was wrong?

Wendy D would have had you believe that nothing was wrong. But she refused to accept that there was something seriously wrong.

In this post I pointed out to Mclellan that the RNS was definitely missing and urged them to get the RNS out before the AIM regulators noticed the delay:

Anomalous - 13 Apr'05 - 13:28 - 4554 of 5408

mclellan - 13 Apr'05 - 11:29 - 4535 of 4553
GB- I might be a bit peeved at the sp not going up..true..but it is a totally different thing to suggest wrong-doing by POSSIBLY omitted RNSs etc..
I am not into internet libel, thank you.

>Mc
It's not possibly, it is definitely omitted. I have categorically confirmed that the RNS's should have been made. For the bank and for the directors. Both should have been notified, but the company is probably unaware that even as Australian registered, they have an obligation to report under AIM too.

I doubt that they would be punished for missing it, but they ought to get it out before the regulators notice it.

Here for the second time, you can see Wendy D's denial and my response to it:

Anomalous - 13 Apr'05 - 13:52 - 4559 of 5408

wdurham - 13 Apr'05 - 11:46 - 4541 of 4554
The AIM rules state that the AIM listed company must disclose such information, insofar as they have it, without delay.

They did.

Where is the problem?

They didn't announce the information correctly.

For the directors:
They have to specify the name of the directors receiving - they didn't
They have to specify the number of shares held afterwards - they didn't
They have to specify the percentage of shares held - they didn't

For the bank:
They have to specify the name of the bank taking the holding - they didn't
They have to specify the percentage held by the bank - they didn't

There is no doubt that there is missing data. That has been confirmed. So unless they get this data out, they are making themselves liable for investigation by AIM. They need to get a move on and apologise (to AIM) for the confusion.

You can also see that I state that the company need to get a move on, to get the announcement out and apologise for the delay and confusion.

Here I responded to Mclellan's post about her theory that the information was 'half baked':

Anomalous - 13 Apr'05 - 14:04 - 4561 of 5408
mclellan - 13 Apr'05 - 13:43 - 4557 of 4560
Thank you, Wendy..I am very weary of Anom's half-baked "information".

I wouldn't call the AIM regulation team 'half-baked' as it was them that confirmed the state of play. They said, even as an Australian registered company, they have failed to report as they were required to.

Putting the information in another RNS and just saying you've issued 'the Badenhorsts' is not enough. For all you know, I could be a Badenhorst. I'm not, but the point is that the AIM Regs team stated that the individual has to be named, the number of shares they own (and percentage) has to be properly announced.

As it is the Badenhorsts don't have to announce, unless one of them owns more than 5%. But the bank does and the bank never made the announcement through the Nomad. The directors also should have announced and didn't.

So don't go around saying it's someone's half-baked theory, when you haven't bothered to check if it is true. The AIM regulation team are now looking into it and will hopefully remind the company rather then fine them. We did tell them that we thought it was an oversight.

And yet again, another post, pointing out that the AIM confirmed something was wrong and where I asked them to look into the matter without making a complaint.

Anomalous - 13 Apr'05 - 14:25 - 4568 of 5408

mclellan - 13 Apr'05 - 14:10 - 4563 of 4565
Anomalous- You are just trying to cause trouble. You have constantly inferred wrong-doing here. I have only YOUR word for it, which I don't trust at all.
Who is 'we'..have you become royal?

The 'we' that I am refering to is Gaybriefs and myself. It's clear that GB was upset this morning. I was maybe speaking out of turn, but I was hoping that he didn't make an official complaint against NML.

I spoke with my friendly AIM regulator (the one I normally speak to) and asked if he could remind the company without going over the top and making it an official investigation, with all that that entails. He agreed that he would look into it for us. But he did confirm that they were definitely missing the necessary information - even for an Australian company.

Apparently, they get asked this question quite a lot, so he already knew what I needed to know. He said that most questions get asked about Aussie and Canadian companies. People forget that their regulations are slightly different. But if they are listed on AIM, the reporting requirements are the same. They still have to give the full details. In this case, a simple correction will probably suffice. Then it might remind the mystery seller that they have to notify as well.

Another poster (Ianwc) then asked for the AIM details so he could confirm the information for himself:

Anomalous - 13 Apr'05 - 14:30 - 4570 of 5408

Ianwc - 13 Apr'05 - 14:25 - 4567 of 4568
Anom - can we have the contact details of the AIM team you spoke to . I would like to confirm your accusations.

I don't think he will mind me putting his number up. Call the LSE on 0207 797 1000, ask to speak with the AIM regulation team. Ask him to confirm the reporting requirements for Australian firms and the information they should contain:

1. The full name (or company name) of the holder
2. The number of shares held
3. The percentage of shares held (of the whole company)

and for directors

1. The full name of the director
2. The number of shares acquired/disposed
3. The number of shares after the change
4. The percentage of shares after the change

Be sure to confirm with him that the Australian notifiable is 5% and the directors disclosure details are the same as the UK ones.

To which Ianwc replied a while later:


Ianwc - 13 Apr'05 - 14:55 - 4580 of 5408
Andy, read my post! I know Griffin are in Bermuda! The point is that regulations for companies registered outside of the UK are different.

I have spoken to Chris...

He confirmed that directors of companies, regardless of where they are based are supposed to do the folowing.

1. The full name of the director
2. The number of shares acquired/disposed
3. The number of shares after the change
4. The percentage of shares after the change

However, he could no definative answer on whether reporting requirements for Australian firms should contain:

1. The full name (or company name) of the holder
2. The number of shares held
3. The percentage of shares held (of the whole company)

He said he can give no definative answer as to whether NML have made any mistakes on any of their RNS's.

Be quite frank, this sounds like another storm in a teacup Anom. imo you can't see the forest from the trees.

A storm in a tea cup that required two RNSs and is now subject to a full investigation, because of the reported discrepancies. I responded with the following:

Anomalous - 13 Apr'05 - 15:04 - 4583 of 5408
>Ianwc
When we reviewed the RNS's (that Wendy posted above), Chris could see that they were missing the data.

The directors information was definitely missing. He said that he would contact NML (or probably he meant their Nomad) about this. He did say to me that the shareholder information (re the bank) was also missing, if the issue was over the reporting requirement.

We know that it is, because they have just under 10% and the limit is 5%. Chris didn't give a definitive answer because he has to check the data, the number of shares issued and the total shares, before he is certain. (Unlike others) he took my word that the bank had more than the notifiable amount. He was correct to do so.

So it appears that both Ianwc and I have received the same information.