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 ??

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.

Here we are getting to the nub of my point (as most of you will be glad!)
Wendy makes a post about the declarations:

wdurham - 15 Apr'05 - 19:14 - 4743 of 5408
Protected trades must be completed in the same market interval (i.e. the 8.00 am - 4.30pm market day) in which they are placed. Or if placed after market close, by the end of the following market interval.

A large ordinary sell of 75 x NMS may take 5 days to be published, unless it is 90% completed, in which case it must then be published whether or not 5 days have expired.

There are many millions of shares out there in the market place. A 500k holding sold at 4.5p represents just 22,500k. Not chicken feed, but not exactly a fortune. This interminable harping on that it MUST be the Badenhorsts or it MUST be the lending bank or it MUST be the directors selling stock is rather silly, given that there are many more millions of shares out there held by a wide range of investors.

And the equally interminable harping on about missing RNS statements is equally silly. The UKREG announcements were made as required - they merely lacked the fine detail required by the AIM rules. The purpose of the rules is to try to ensure that shareholders are kept informed about major shareholders' buying and selling activities, and directors dealings.

Tell me, as an investor, that you don't know how many shares the lending bank now hold? And you don't know how many shares the Badenhorsts hold? And you are equally unaware of the directors' holdings following the issue of shares distributed to them in lieu of the accrued fees stated in the last Annual Report?

There was indeed inadequate disclosure from the point of view of the AIM rules, but there was definitely material disclosure, and no shareholder who has two braincells to rub together is in any doubt as to who owns what.

So you can see that Wendy first claims that the declarations were made as required and then states that they are missing some 'fine detail', but that it doesn't matter. The AIM didn't think so as they required two RNS to be made.

Here is my response to Wendy D and her reponse to me.

Anomalous - 15 Apr'05 - 23:17 - 4747 of 5408
That is where you are completely wrong Wendy. The material facts were missed and they are pertinent to the current high volumes sales that are being made. You may be prepared to announce your ignorance to everyone, but the other investors are plainly not content given their obvious disatisfaction at the low share price even after the mine-start RNS.

Some of them are very angry that the rise they expected has not appeared and the discussion about the mystery sellers is a clear indication of where they lay the blame. It seems that some think it is a 'forced' sell by bankruptcy or death. Whilst others believe that it is the placing people, the bank or even the directors. Nobody has said that it 'MUST' be one of these. So your statement IS in error.

Well there is a way of finding out if it has been the last two, by the company making the declarations they should have made by the AIM rules. If these notifications show that the key shareholders, such as the bank or the directors have been selling their holdings, how do you intend to apologise to the other investors for being wrong?

You see some investors have been claiming that the acceptance of shares in lieu of cash, was a vote of confidence in the project. In my opinion it was nothing of the sort. In my opinion these people accepted shares because the company did not have adequate working capital, to both pay the people and carry the company through the work-up period to full production.

I still believe that the company's finances have been stretched to the limit and a dilution may be announced. These people may have been told that they can convert the shares back to cash on the market, at a premium to the price they were issued. These people are very probably taking advantage of this advice and converting back in tranches large enough that do not depress the share price for long, or enough to prevent the premium being received again.

We'll have to see if these declarations are made. If they are not, then somebody might really get in trouble. Afterall, the AIM can forgive a mistake, but they might not forgive a deliberate witholding of information. Especially if the people withholding have been doing so, to deceive the investors about their true intentions or confidence in the project.

wdurham - 16 Apr'05 - 00:12 - 4748 of 5408
Dear oh dear, Anomalous.
The only poster here claiming that the Badenhorsts, the Bank or the Board are selling is you. The only person claiming that there has been non-disclosure is you. The existing UKREG statements are quite adequate to meet the needs of the market and the needs of investors, although they do not meet the letter of the AIM rules. After all, can you not calculate that x number of shares out of a total of y = z? Can you not calculate that if a director is owed x, and is given 10 shares to the dollar, he must now own z?

I know that modern arithmetic instruction leaves a lot to be desired, but I didn't think you were young enough to have suffered the dumbing down. Clearly I was wrong, and you need to have it all spelled out for you.

If existing large holders have been selling shares, NML can do nothing until they are advised of such sales. You might benefit from a nice little chat with Donal Douglas. He could teach you a bit about the real world.

But if you really want to start tossing around accusations of being "wrong", should you not remember Conroy? How many people lost how much money because of your constantly reiterated advice to buy THAT little beauty? In spite of the cautionary tales from mining company CEOs whom you rubbished!

Now it was at this point that someone who had invested in Minmet turned up and posted something about Wendy D that you should see:

Business Link - 16 Apr'05 - 00:24 - 4749 of 5408

WD,

Have you recently acquired knowledge of the mining industry or are you still trading on the second hand schmooze of dodgy directors of micro cap trash like your old mate Jeremy Metcalfe from MNT - You will never be forgotten for your single handed ramping of that stock. I only hope that the Kimberlite that Metcalfe presented you at the MNT AGM (for you sterling work on the BB's) some years back actually contained some Diamonds unlike the Matto Grasso region that you ramped to heaven and beyond.

Regards
A long memory

So you see, Wendy D does have a chequered history regarding Minmet and some of the former investors of that company hold a grudge against Wendy D for the way she ramped that share. I suppose you might say that her support for NML is similar, but NML has not crashed.............................................. yet.

Then I replied with this post getting to the heart of the problem and pointing out that if Wendy still claimed that nothing was wrong, we could prove that something was wrong by making the official complaint (I've highlighted the relevant section):

Anomalous - 16 Apr'05 - 03:01 - 4753 of 5408
Quite wrong zzap, Wendy is deceiving you. Let's dissect her post to see where she has made her mistakes:

The only poster here claiming that the Badenhorsts, the Bank or the Board are selling is you.

So far I have seen Andy and Opthalmist amongst others claiming that they also think that it may be the bank. In my claims, I said it was "possible" or even "probable", but I never said "definite", because there is no conclusive evidence...........Yet.

The RNS of the bank's current holding would be proof. All it requires is a complaint to the AIM that the bank has failed to notify the market and they would face a full investigation and possible fine. The trouble is that the company might suffer into the bargain, because the bank may blame them for failing to make the appropriate RNS. They might also withdraw from any further convertible loans on the grounds that it would be too much trouble.

The only person claiming that there has been non-disclosure is you.

Wendy shamelessly lies to the BB, because Ianwc in post 4580 says:

Ianwc - 13 Apr'05 - 14:55 - 4580 of 4752
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.

So you see, Wendy is lying, because Ianwc also checked with the LSE and verified the reporting requirements for the directors. In the above post, he clearly stated that they had to report:

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

All of these were missing from the RNS dated 30 December 2004. You can not simply make the assumption that you add X number of shares to Y number already held and give you Z number now held, as for one reason, you don't know who the shares were issued to and how many each

because they never told you

Why is Wendy so foolish as to blindly accept the distribution of these shares? Or is she trying to deceive you? It was not one individual director, because the text said:

Additionally and as a demonstration of their confidence in the Company all directors of NML have opted to convert their outstanding directors fees to shares. An amount of A$386,857 accruing since November 2001 has been converted at A$0.10 per share (4p) resulting in the issue of 3,865,270 ordinary shares.

So you can see, that without the information on who received how many shares, you are completely blind as to the current holdings of the directors. When I first pulled up this point about a month or two ago, I let it pass because the directors would have to report their new holdings in the Annual Report. But it was assumed that the heavy selling would terminate after the mine start RNS, when if anything it has actually become worse.

The existing UKREG statements are quite adequate to meet the needs of the market and the needs of investors, although they do not meet the letter of the AIM rules.

They are most certainly not adequate for the market if they do not conform to the regulations stiplulated by AIM. Those disclosure requirements are set out in that format to make sure the market (including investors) are aware of any change of holdings by the directors and other notifiable holders. The existing UKREG were completely inadequate and if the regulations are not complied with there will be official complaints against the parties involved.

If you continue to argue the toss of the rights or wrongs of the UKREG already issued, there is a way to settle the matter. An official complaint can be made to the AIM against each director that received shares in that issue. I tried to ask Mc to remind the directors to get their house in order. I even asked the AIM team to remind them without getting them into trouble. But if Wendy persists in denying that they have done anything wrong, maybe we should let the directors suffer an investigation and/or possible fine for failure to declare. I'm sure they would appreciate that Wendy was only provoking us to make the complaint, because she was trying to conceal the fact that they had failed to carry out their AIM obligations. Maybe she will support them further by offering to pay part or all of their fine when the AIM decide that there was a breach of the regulations. Maybe the other shareholders will be able to tell Wendy to 'wind her neck in' over this issue, before I go ahead and chop it off! After all, an investigation into the directors would also hit the share price. I don't mind it, because I don't have that many shares, but someone like notready or any of the other major holders might lose out because Wendy was defending the impossible. Defending a market offence.

After all, can you not calculate that x number of shares out of a total of y = z? Can you not calculate that if a director is owed x, and is given 10 shares to the dollar, he must now own z?

As I've pointed previously, you don't know the quantities of shares received by each director. So how can you possibly calculate Z if you do not have the value of the fees that were converted. It does not mention the distribution of the fees, so it is therefore impossible to calculate how much was issued at 10 cents each. All you do know from the RNS is:

An amount of A$386,857 accruing since November 2001 has been converted at A$0.10 per share (4p) resulting in the issue of 3,865,270 ordinary shares.

So you know 3,865,270 shares were issued,

But who received them?

If existing large holders have been selling shares, NML can do nothing until they are advised of such sales.

As I pointed out yesterday, it could be construed that NML has already received notification, by virtue of the fact that they issued the shares to the directors. The directors could therefore argue that it is not them that should pay the fines for failure to notify, but the company. Which means that you. me and every other shareholder would have to foot the bill for the failure to make a properly formatted RNS.

What's even more daft, is that the company did make a properly formatted RNS for a director issue earlier in the year. So it is not as if they do not know how to do it, or have even forgotten what it should include. Check it out for yourself and you will see that it does include all the data:
http://www.uk-wire.com/cgi-bin/articles/200408111234528589B.html

One might even think that the reason the company did not include the full data on the 30 December 2004, was that the directors HAD already sold shares without notifying the market and that the inclusion of the full details would expose this. There is no proof that they have sold any and I am not accussing them of selling anything or indeed that they broke the regulations. I am merely stating that it could be a very good explanation for the company's lapse of memory of the AIM regulations after their previous RNS earlier in the year.

You might benefit from a nice little chat with Donal Douglas. He could teach you a bit about the real world.

That statement is arrogant beyond belief. I do live in the real world and also realise that market abuse is far more common than most investors know. It's a pity that Wendy chooses to hold herself in such high esteem that she can't recognise that she fell off her 'perch' a long time ago.

But if you really want to start tossing around accusations of being "wrong", should you not remember Conroy? How many people lost how much money because of your constantly reiterated advice to buy THAT little beauty? In spite of the cautionary tales from mining company CEOs whom you rubbished!

Well the people that know you from Minmet have turned up to tell us a few home truths about your conduct in that case. So that seems to be Pot and Kettle to
me.

Grow up Wendy, you are only making it worse by fighting the truth

Here, exasperated at Wendy's posts, I pointed out to Mclellan that the company had two days to put their house in order before the official complaint was filed with the AIM:

Anomalous - 16 Apr'05 - 13:23 - 4762 of 5408

mclellan - 16 Apr'05 - 10:51 - 4758 of 4761
Anomalous- apparently the phenomenon of 'externalising guilt'is well-recognised these days among psychiatrists.(Professor Raj Persaud) That is, nothing is ever the fault of the perpetrator...the 'fault' MUST be because of something or someone else.
How can you possibly blame Wendy or Ian for this latest debacle? It is simply ludicrous and if that is truly what you think, then I doubt your sanity.

You miss the point Fiona. As I have explained to you elsewhere, it is not Wendy or Ian that caused this 'debacle' as you put it. The cause of the trouble is the mystery seller and the missing RNS's.

Quite a few investors now accept that there has been quite a few sells that add up to a large volume. It was assumed by many last year, that these sells had to dry up sooner of later. But they haven't. It's certainly possible and plausible that there has been a whole series of sellers for the past year. But the problem still remains that the share price is being artificially depressed by tranches of shares being intermitantly sold.

We know for certain, without doubt and conclusively that RNS's have been missed. What's to say that the seller has also missed their RNS's as well? I think it highly likely. Do I accuse Wendy or Ianwc of this offence - NO.

Ianwc has bothered to check that there is information missing. He's done nothing wrong. Wendy on the other hand, is denying that an RNS is necessary, when we know (from the AIM) that it is. But denying that there is an offence is not an offence in itself. It is merely an indication of Wendy's refusal to accept the truth and her ignorance of the relevance of that RNS to NML's current predicament regarding the share price.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by her failure to accept what Ianwc took the trouble to confirm. So the company now has two days to get those RNS's out during next week. If they fail to, then an official complaint will be made to the AIM and they can properly investigate the situation.

Then maybe Wendy can apologise to the people who are charged by the AIM, for her being responsible for encouraging the denial of an obvious market offence.

5 days after this post, the first RNS was released.

To which Wendy D responded thus:

wdurham - 16 Apr'05 - 19:31 - 4774 of 5408
Before I abandon the crock of excrement that this thread has become, and seek the company of relatively intelligent beings elsewhere I just have one thing to say:

*I* am a liar? ME?

Ludicrous.

Lots of people here on ADVFN don't like me, because I am evenhanded and straight, call a spade a spade, and can often seem to be actually down on a stock I hold, if things are not as they should be. But no-one has ever - EVER - called me a liar.

And you bozos can raise the spectre of Minmet all you like - I never, ever told anyone to buy the stock. My enthusiasm for it turned out to be horribly misplaced, and I have been apologising all over the bloody internet for 3 years.

Unlike certain folk who ramped Conroy, and NML and EPD to the skies, and in some instances are still exhorting folk to buy (with Conroy he ramped first, told them all to buy, got it all TOTALLY wrong, rubbished the advice of folk who actually RUN mining companies in Ireland = and then told them all to sell once he discovered all the "director's lies" - LOL!)- and all of that in spite of not being regulated to give financial advice. But Anomalous doesn't make mistakes, and then admit them and apologise for them as I have done so often. He blames the management for lying, or other investors for lying, or - or - or - anyone and anything you care to name.

Cheers, chaps and Fiona/other ladies. I may meet the saner inhabitants elsewhere, but I can't be doing with this asylum for paranoids, grandeur-delusionists, self-styled investment advisers and FSA-fetishists any longer. Particularly those who call ME a liar.

Which then resulted in the following two posts:

5carobDVS1 - 17 Apr'05 - 13:42 - 4782 of 5408
On another thread:

Anomalous - 17 Apr'05 - 12:59 - 114 of 114
They are not the only ones. That was just a couple of them. There are more, but I don't have all the data on them at the moment.

OT - I noted that post 49 showed that The Bank of Islam (Kuala Lumpur), which is different to the UK Bank of Islam. CSmyth indicated that they held 40% of the share capital of NML. If this is the case, then there is a serious concern that the biggest shareholder in NML IS the mystery seller. That's why the RNS would be useful to show the current situation. I'm visiting the LSE to discuss other matters. If the company hasn't regularised its affairs by then, the LSE will be asked to look into the matter and discover why there's been a lack of properly formatted declaration RNSs from the company.

Anomalous - 17 Apr'05 - 14:01 - 4783 of 5408
Quite so, Wendy's refusal to accept the truth and attempt to deny that anything is wrong, has prompted me to take matters further. The share price is being artificially depressed by someone selling large tranches at irregular intervals. We ought to find out if this seller is one of the major shareholders of NML, as it would seem that someone does not have the confidence in the project that the rest of the shareholders have.

If the share price continues at these prices, it will only serve to upset the investors and might actually put off other would-be shareholders. The lack of a up-curve to the share price is going to put off quite a few of them and could be one of any number of reasons why the institutionals have not invested
or the share has not been tipped by the tipsters.

So you can see that finally I gave up trying to convince Wendy D and wrote an official complaint to the AIM in the hope that they would get something done to convince her that she was wrong.

But the main reason for pushing for the RNS's, was to find out if we could locate the person selling shares, who was responsible for artificially depressing the share price.