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 ??

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.

I take it you feel strongly about this anomolous.. i agree with the following:

'At least I had the courage to admit that I had believed the lies told by the company. They had fooled me good and proper with the stories. They fooled Gunner too. The poor guy couldn't afford to lose money in that way.

The company had put out these false stories and false claims about when they would start operations and some of their 'henchmen' like csmyth have helped perpetuate the story by saying they would be operating in a few months. 6 months later - still nothing. So I've looked at the company data and checked their statements and found that the company did make poor estimates. My estimates were better. The share price did reach 4p. They did dilute. They didn't start in February.'


I certainly got hooked in by the co. Was lucky enough to get out unscathed.

Here is Wendy's response to my posts:

wdurham - 14 Apr'05 - 17:42 - 4683 of 5408

wdurham - 14 Apr'05 - 11:32 - 4671 of 4680
So let's get this straight then - *IF* there is an AIM investigation into NML's alleged non-disclosure of precisely accurate shareholding positions, it won't be the fault of the person who reported them?

It will actually be the fault of other people who phoned later, to check the reality of the situation?

Do we have an answer for this yet? Or have I missed it?

Is this the same, do you think, as it not being Anom's fault that the death threats ended up on AFX? That was definitely the company's fault, I understand, because they "issued an AFX" - in spite of the fact that it was Anom who made the matter public by informing the police and the broker and anyone else who asked. Had he kept his big mouth shut, no-one would have been any the wiser, and BB threats from drugged-up twits would have attracted the attention they usually attract - i.e. none. The chance of said druggged-up idiot making it to London and doing damage to Healy and/or good old Gunner was less than zilch.

Much the same goes for the alleged non-disclosure - AIM would have been totally unaware that NML had missed out some realtively insignificant detail from their shareholding releases had Anom not told them.

The whole point of such releases is that shareholders are kept advised of directors' buying and selling (of which there was none!!), and the number of shares issued to and/or held by third parties. All three releases that I quoted yesterday fulfilled that objective. We know that the lending bank hold x, that the Badenhorsts hold x, and we know that the directors were given ten shares for every $ they were owed. As what they were owed is in the recently released Annual report, it doesn't take a degree in numeracy to appreciate that each named director now holds a few more than he had before.

But no - Anom wants letter of the law - every I dotted and every T crossed.

But the investigation into non-disclosure by New Millennium that will now probably ensue is not his fault ..........oh, no, most definitely not his fault.....

God preserve us from nit-picking fools and possessors of "a little knowledge."

To which I responded as follows:

Anomalous - 14 Apr'05 - 20:54 - 4686 of 5408
Perhaps you would prefer it if I made an official complaint then, instead of just asking the AIM team to make a friendly reminder to an Australian company which is probably unaware of their reporting requirements.

None of the RNS's you quoted was sufficient to satisfy the regulations and the total lack of RNS's probably indicates that one or other of the major holders is the mystery seller depressing the share price.

Or would YOU prefer to live in ignorance as to why the share price is still languishing in the 4p to 5p range? Instead of shooting upwards to the 20p that most investors claimed would happen and expected on mine start.

If the company has neglected to RNS, how many other shareholders have forgotten to do it and broken the law?

If YOU prefer to be ignorant, then be my guest. I would prefer to know who is causing the share price to be held down.

legend290782 - 12 Jun'05 - 01:25 - 756 of 757
I take it you feel strongly about this anomolous.. i agree with the following:
'At least I had the courage to admit that I had believed the lies told by the company. They had fooled me good and proper with the stories. They fooled Gunner too. The poor guy couldn't afford to lose money in that way.

The company had put out these false stories and false claims about when they would start operations and some of their 'henchmen' like csmyth have helped perpetuate the story by saying they would be operating in a few months. 6 months later - still nothing. So I've looked at the company data and checked their statements and found that the company did make poor estimates. My estimates were better. The share price did reach 4p. They did dilute. They didn't start in February.'
I certainly got hooked in by the co. Was lucky enough to get out unscathed.


I'm pleased that you managed to get out even or better.

I guess you can see how seriously I have taken this, by referring back to the posts that prove that I gave the company every chance to sort the matter out and that Wendy D finally provoked me into making it an official complaint to the AIM in exasperation.

The trouble is that I've now found out even more serious information and it shocked me when I discovered it. In fact, after I did find it out, I laughed so much I almost got a stitch. You see it validated my 'concerns' that all was not well with NML.

It was bad enough that someone was selling in enough quantity to depress the shareprice, but it was even worse to discover the other news. Then to have even more presented to me 'on a plate'.

Here's another post where I discuss the discrepancies with another shareholder:

Anomalous - 14 Apr'05 - 22:32 - 4694 of 5408
Trouble is Opthalmist, that I don't believe we are looking at just one seller. The selling has been going on since last year. If you don't believe me, ask the others. There has been some large sells depressing the share price for well over 6 months.

At first, we thought that the seller was some of the people connected with the first placing. 20 million shares was an awful lot and if they acquired at 3p, they could easily sit there for months offloading at 4p or 5p and still making a profit. The problem was and is, that the placing was with many people and it seemed highly unlikely that all of them could be selling that much for that long and together. We could only assume that some of them (with millions each) were selling in turns. The sheer volumes did not suggest some small shareholders.

Since then, we've had three more major issues. One for 16 million, the convertible loan note and the Badenhorsts. There's been no RNS's to show that any individual is selling large quantities of shares. But then we also know that some RNS's have been missed. So what's to say that the sellers are also unaware that they are obliged to declare and have failed to do so. I think it would be very interesting to see the actual holdings of the bank and the directors, to see if any of them have divested themselves of any portion of their holdings.

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the project if they have been selling them, but it is a legitimate tactic to minimise risk.

Please answer this question. What makes you think that the company will RNS the figures for the carats extracted in the next couple of weeks (or three)?

I'm sure that when NML finally gets tipped, there will be a lot of buying, but will the company appear in the press? The PR for NML is absolutely crap in my opinion. I could do a better job....... NO wait.....I have done.... I got the company tipped in Shares magazine. Has Gary done that?.............. NO

Maybe you ought to give him a ring, or failing that an almighty kick up the @rse might be in order!

Here are another two posts relevant to the declarations issue:

Ianwc - 14 Apr'05 - 23:01 - 4695 of 5408
I am a bit confused Anom,
1.According to the rules if i understand them, directors of the company have to notify any change in interest. Are you accusing the directors of the company of selling shares in the open market and not notifying anyone?

2. Nik Zuks own less than 5% of the company and is no longer a director. That means he is entitled to sell his stake if he so chooses, and is under no obligation to notify the company. Correct?

3. If the Bank of Islam is selling stock in the market. This is not NML's fault. The Bank is under obligation to notify the company if there stake changes. ( NML may not had said the percantage of the holding in the update, but they said the number of shares issued to the bank, doesn't take a genius to figure how much they hold.) Only then would NML be aware of it, and in turn release an RNS to update the market. Correct?

Anomalous - 14 Apr'05 - 23:39 - 4696 of 5408
>Ianwc

1. NO - I am not accusing them of selling. I merely said that it would be interesting to see if the figures for the directors. We know what was reported as their holdings and some of them are considerable. It would be perfectly possible for them to be the mystery seller, i.e. selling millions, but I am not accusing them. If their holding figures were lower, what would you say?

2. If his holding is below 5% there is no impediment to him selling, you are quite correct. Even if his holding is over 5% there is no problem, so long as he notifies. He can do as he wishes, just as you or I or anyone else can sell.

One of the things that puzzled me was that the company never asked for a commitment to hold the shares for a period after conversion. I suppose that this may have been because 'beggars can't be choosers'. They may have had little option when it came to the terms of the agreement. If the bank or anyone else chose to dump their entire holding onto the market (after the price rise) then they might have caused the price to crash. If they are selling bit by bit, then this is actually more preferable in some ways. The only drawback is that it p!sses off the investors that were waiting for the rise on mine start.

3. Is the Bank of Islam the holder? Are you sure?

I believe under Australian regulations the holder is only under obligation to notify if they sell shares, which causes their holding to drop past a whole percentage point above 5%. Almost the same as in the UK, except the notifiable percentage is 5% not 3%. This was what the LSE told me.

It is the obligation of the seller to make sure that the notifiable declaration is passed to the company, who are then responsible to make sure that the declaration is made to the market (in the correct format and carrying the correct information), within the prescribed time, after notification to the company.

If the seller fails to notify the company, then the company can not be held liable for the failure. However, if the seller does notify the company and they then fail to pass this information on, then the company is at fault.

Now, we know that the directors have received shares and failed to make the proper notification. The company issued the shares, therefore the company knew that the directors holdings had changed. The directors are individuals. They administer the company, but technically under UK law, they are not employees. I am not clear of the Australian situation. If it is similar in this respect.

So, the company knew of the change, but they may not have been notified of the change. That really sounds daft, but technically I suppose you'd need an expert in Company law from the DTI or the Australian equivalent to confirm if that means the notification was automatic or was actually required. That is, after receiving the shares, the director had to pick up the phone or send an email or a letter asking the company to make a declaration RNS.

It's my opinion, that the government body would say that the company DID know about the issue to the directors and should also have known that it was required to make a declaration of the details immediately. They did say that they made an issue, but not give the details. The details are very relevant, because they would reassure any holder that the directors had not sold any shares.

We went through this whole issue in the Room Service case. We had so many declarable RNS's in quick succession, that it became obvious that there were more shares held by the declarable holders than existed on the market. It was this proof that was enough to call in the FSA and request and require that they begin an immediate enquiry into the short-selling. The FSA could not refuse, because the evidence was there in black and white. More shares declared than issued.

I do hope that they get these RNS's out as quick as they can. Otherwise some shareholders may despair at the lack of news and the low price being held down by heavy sells and sell their own shares prematurely.... just before they rise in value. That would be a great shame.