- Joined
- 7 January 2008
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
No offence to you Muffin Man, I must have submitted my comment at the same time you submitted yours, my response was directed at the Directors, not at you.........
JRV - Jervois Global
- Thread starter SLWK
- Start date
No offence to you Muffin Man, I must have submitted my comment at the same time you submitted yours, my response was directed at the Directors, not at you.........
- Joined
- 19 November 2007
- Posts
- 551
- Reactions
- 0
Not sure about the news.
Obviously at first glance it looks bad, JV agreement not made within the time frame, and agreement may be terminated, and the shares initially sold off over 50% because of it. (However, apart from the pop above 2c, the shares had basically stayed the same for the last few months and not participated in the commodity stock decimation of the last 2-3 months. The reason for this was the expected agreement was giving a floor to the price.) The share price regained some of the losses by the end of the day.
On careful reading, it seems like the agreement was not finalised because JRV feel sure they are very close to finalising their own extraction process, which their badly worded announcement a month or two ago hinted at. And that they prefer this process over that of their Chinese partners. Hence the agreement looks to have been suspended/postponed/allowed to lapse by JRV rather than the Chinese. If true, JRV hope to end up with a much better partnership if/when their process is finally fully proven.
A very big call by management. If they are right, it's actually good news for the company, but will probably need proof before the share price reacts.
Obviously at first glance it looks bad, JV agreement not made within the time frame, and agreement may be terminated, and the shares initially sold off over 50% because of it. (However, apart from the pop above 2c, the shares had basically stayed the same for the last few months and not participated in the commodity stock decimation of the last 2-3 months. The reason for this was the expected agreement was giving a floor to the price.) The share price regained some of the losses by the end of the day.
On careful reading, it seems like the agreement was not finalised because JRV feel sure they are very close to finalising their own extraction process, which their badly worded announcement a month or two ago hinted at. And that they prefer this process over that of their Chinese partners. Hence the agreement looks to have been suspended/postponed/allowed to lapse by JRV rather than the Chinese. If true, JRV hope to end up with a much better partnership if/when their process is finally fully proven.
A very big call by management. If they are right, it's actually good news for the company, but will probably need proof before the share price reacts.
The fact that the price came back after being initially being decimated.... maybe there is hope that there is deal on the table in some form? or that management thinks they are likley to make that long awaited breakthrough on the 'iron hyrolysis process" but their wording is a bit of a worry.. i.e
" potentially in sight" .
If it said 'in sight" that would be encouraging, but potentially in sight??? what does that mean? toss a coin. does anyone here know about this process??
i've been holding these for a while and, as posted above, the only consolation is that they have held steady as the rest of the market has s..t itself (depending on how many you hold of course). I think i will just hold them now (put in the bottom drawer so to speak) as the large land holdings they have and potential resources therein surely amount to more than $30M (curent market value) on land value alone.
" potentially in sight" .
If it said 'in sight" that would be encouraging, but potentially in sight??? what does that mean? toss a coin. does anyone here know about this process??
i've been holding these for a while and, as posted above, the only consolation is that they have held steady as the rest of the market has s..t itself (depending on how many you hold of course). I think i will just hold them now (put in the bottom drawer so to speak) as the large land holdings they have and potential resources therein surely amount to more than $30M (curent market value) on land value alone.
- Joined
- 7 January 2008
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
What bad luck, I don't believe the agreement had anything to do with it, except that the Chinese Partners may have wanted to extend the time frame to fulfill the agreement. Normally the agreement would contain a legally binding list of clauses that clearly identify all parties needs. If it were to be executed 6 weeks earlier, we'd all be partying. It just comes down to JRV long list of BAD LUCK.
- Joined
- 2 May 2007
- Posts
- 4,688
- Reactions
- 2,901
Dear Touch of Gold
Never mind and better change your end of message. The words 'grain of salt' should be replaced with 'Touch of Gold'
Any way I do not think JRV frame of agreement break out was due to bad luck. It was more of a sign of bad management and probably a manipulative art by a sinister of group of management who has been concealing some information to be disclosed to market.
Such agreement does not just break without giving sufficient warning and protracted negotiations if both parties were serious. I feel (as a burnt and curren shareholder) that the market was not fully informed and showing the glass was half full than saying it was half empty. That is life and I suspect under current uncertainity many companies will turn out to be like JRV
- Joined
- 7 January 2008
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
Dear Touch of Gold
Never mind and better change your end of message. The words 'grain of salt' should be replaced with 'Touch of Gold'
Any way I do not think JRV frame of agreement break out was due to bad luck. It was more of a sign of bad management and probably a manipulative art by a sinister of group of management who has been concealing some information to be disclosed to market.
Such agreement does not just break without giving sufficient warning and protracted negotiations if both parties were serious. I feel (as a burnt and curren shareholder) that the market was not fully informed and showing the glass was half full than saying it was half empty. That is life and I suspect under current uncertainity many companies will turn out to be like JRV
Long time reader, 1st Post out of sheer frustration!!!
Age is not the principal concern, wisdom is good, (ie Buffet) after saying that I agree the management is fairly mediocre, but guys, if it wasn't for the the current credit crisis, an average joe smuck would have got us over the line...
First time post long time reader.
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that although there always "seems" to be activity and potential.
Recently, via a number of articles here and there, I pieced together the puzzle and i came to the conclusion that JRV is just a cash cow for Duncan Pursell's retirement (if he ever retires) and his family, ie Helen Foster (daughter), Allan Pursell (son), geologist (related to family), family trust (shares) etc.
I somehow think that these family members may not have the necessary skills and experience to make JRV a viable proposition and it could be for this reason the Chinese pulled out.
There is just too much "family" involved for my liking.
I'm selling and never comming back as long as there is a strong family involvement .
Over the years I've come to the conclusion that although there always "seems" to be activity and potential.
Recently, via a number of articles here and there, I pieced together the puzzle and i came to the conclusion that JRV is just a cash cow for Duncan Pursell's retirement (if he ever retires) and his family, ie Helen Foster (daughter), Allan Pursell (son), geologist (related to family), family trust (shares) etc.
I somehow think that these family members may not have the necessary skills and experience to make JRV a viable proposition and it could be for this reason the Chinese pulled out.
There is just too much "family" involved for my liking.
I'm selling and never comming back as long as there is a strong family involvement .
Hold your horses, don't sell.
Judging by the 22 December proposed meeting there is a chance that Peter Nightingale and Norman Seckhold will have more say in everything in the future. I couldn't think of a better outcome for this company.
I am holding my shares for the long term and I am optimistic for the future.
Merry Christmas All
Judging by the 22 December proposed meeting there is a chance that Peter Nightingale and Norman Seckhold will have more say in everything in the future. I couldn't think of a better outcome for this company.
I am holding my shares for the long term and I am optimistic for the future.
Merry Christmas All
Re: JRV - Jervoisvision2009
Jervoisvision2009@live.com
Every voice will be heard. We will need every Jervois shareholder to support this. Help us take Jervois into 2009 with the EGM scheduled for Feb 2009.
Our intention is to bring Norm Seckolds experience/skills to Jervois leadership. The support is coming in but we need more. If you guys know other Jervois shareholders who want to see Jervois succeed in 2009, please get them to send their support for new leadership & also state their Jervois holdings to:
jervoisvision2009@live.com
Norm Seckold can turn Jervois into a nickel producing company.
Its your choice.
Jervoisvision2009@live.com
Every voice will be heard. We will need every Jervois shareholder to support this. Help us take Jervois into 2009 with the EGM scheduled for Feb 2009.
Our intention is to bring Norm Seckolds experience/skills to Jervois leadership. The support is coming in but we need more. If you guys know other Jervois shareholders who want to see Jervois succeed in 2009, please get them to send their support for new leadership & also state their Jervois holdings to:
jervoisvision2009@live.com
Norm Seckold can turn Jervois into a nickel producing company.
Its your choice.
Shareholders who are keen to see JRV re-engage with the Chinese under new management, should vote according to the JervoisVision how to vote card in the upcoming EGM. If you want to be part of this change, then nominate Richard Campbell as your proxy and vote:
AGAINST the removal of Richard Cambell as a Director (the first item on the voting paper) and vote FOR the remaining resolutions on the voting paper.
With your help, JervoisVision will make a positive change in JRV. They will re-engage the Chinese joint venture partners and turn Young into the profitable nickel mine that it could be.
AGAINST the removal of Richard Cambell as a Director (the first item on the voting paper) and vote FOR the remaining resolutions on the voting paper.
With your help, JervoisVision will make a positive change in JRV. They will re-engage the Chinese joint venture partners and turn Young into the profitable nickel mine that it could be.
bigdog
Retired many years ago
- Joined
- 19 July 2006
- Posts
- 8,124
- Reactions
- 5,473
Business Spectator reports
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ining-has-13m-loss-Q42J4?opendocument&src=rss
Jervois Mining has $1.3m loss
Source: News Bites
Jervois Mining Ltd reduced its loss to $1.3 million in the half-year to December 31, 2008 from a previous $1.8 million loss, on revenue up 7.7% to $1.1 million.
There was no dividend.
Cash was down from $4.3 million to $2.3 million.
The increase in revenue was due mainly to the rise in price of gold.
The decrease in the loss was due to a reduction in production costs, the company said.
Share price:
JRV 0.005 0.000 0.00% high of 0.005 low of 0.005 2,025,653 shares $10,128 @ 13-Mar 03:39:32 PM
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ining-has-13m-loss-Q42J4?opendocument&src=rss
Jervois Mining has $1.3m loss
Source: News Bites
Jervois Mining Ltd reduced its loss to $1.3 million in the half-year to December 31, 2008 from a previous $1.8 million loss, on revenue up 7.7% to $1.1 million.
There was no dividend.
Cash was down from $4.3 million to $2.3 million.
The increase in revenue was due mainly to the rise in price of gold.
The decrease in the loss was due to a reduction in production costs, the company said.
Share price:
JRV 0.005 0.000 0.00% high of 0.005 low of 0.005 2,025,653 shares $10,128 @ 13-Mar 03:39:32 PM
- Joined
- 2 May 2007
- Posts
- 4,688
- Reactions
- 2,901
Irony of the situation is JRV has again gone or will go to market for new placement of share #$ 4 cents for a new acquirement.
I do hold
and got a letter from some unscrupulous or real investors (out of 150) providing reasons why the current Chairman (employed his son and daughter) be sacked and we invite Chinese connection to be on the board. I have my doubts with cutting my house for CHinese invasion. If we can not trust our own Oz Vegmite how do we know the foreign business personalities with no root here ? Any way see the attachment and put your
for mine and others enlightnment
bigdog
Retired many years ago
- Joined
- 19 July 2006
- Posts
- 8,124
- Reactions
- 5,473
Update on special meeting
http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/pursell-survives-at-jervois-20090402-9l38.html
Pursell survives at Jervois
Jamie Freed
April 2, 2009
THE 22-year reign of Jervois Mining's executive chairman, Duncan Pursell, remained in doubt last night, even though he prevailed over rebel shareholders in the initial vote count at a special meeting in Melbourne.
A group led by the Sydney mining identity Norman Seckold had sought to remove Mr Pursell and three other directors from the Jervois board.
The vote on whether to oust Mr Pursell, who last year would not extend the deadline for China Railway to finalise a joint venture agreement on a nickel laterite project in Young, NSW, was very close.
An investor who attended the two-hour meeting described the atmosphere as "heated".
The results of the meeting released to the ASX showed that discounting the proxies voted at the discretion of Mr Pursell, 48.5 per cent were in favour of his removal, while 50.5 per cent were opposed.
Including 105 million proxies voted at Mr Pursell's discretion - and therefore opposed to the resolution - 46.4 per cent were in favour and 53.6 per cent were opposed.
Jervois had controversially issued hundreds of millions of shares after the notice of meeting was sent out.
The proxy form sent to Jervois shareholders said: "The chairman of the meeting intends to vote undirected proxies in favour of each item of business." The results of voting released yesterday afternoon demonstrated Mr Pursell directed the undirected proxies against eight of the 11 resolutions, despite the advice on the form.
"He has disenfranchised shareholders," said Peter Nightingale, who was a "rebel" candidate for the board.
If those proxies had been voted in favour of all of the resolutions, the rebel shareholders would have won control of the board and Mr Pursell would have been ousted from the company.
The Herald was unable to reach Mr Pursell for comment.
Mr Seckold said there could be cause for a legal challenge to the vote.
http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/pursell-survives-at-jervois-20090402-9l38.html
Pursell survives at Jervois
Jamie Freed
April 2, 2009
THE 22-year reign of Jervois Mining's executive chairman, Duncan Pursell, remained in doubt last night, even though he prevailed over rebel shareholders in the initial vote count at a special meeting in Melbourne.
A group led by the Sydney mining identity Norman Seckold had sought to remove Mr Pursell and three other directors from the Jervois board.
The vote on whether to oust Mr Pursell, who last year would not extend the deadline for China Railway to finalise a joint venture agreement on a nickel laterite project in Young, NSW, was very close.
An investor who attended the two-hour meeting described the atmosphere as "heated".
The results of the meeting released to the ASX showed that discounting the proxies voted at the discretion of Mr Pursell, 48.5 per cent were in favour of his removal, while 50.5 per cent were opposed.
Including 105 million proxies voted at Mr Pursell's discretion - and therefore opposed to the resolution - 46.4 per cent were in favour and 53.6 per cent were opposed.
Jervois had controversially issued hundreds of millions of shares after the notice of meeting was sent out.
The proxy form sent to Jervois shareholders said: "The chairman of the meeting intends to vote undirected proxies in favour of each item of business." The results of voting released yesterday afternoon demonstrated Mr Pursell directed the undirected proxies against eight of the 11 resolutions, despite the advice on the form.
"He has disenfranchised shareholders," said Peter Nightingale, who was a "rebel" candidate for the board.
If those proxies had been voted in favour of all of the resolutions, the rebel shareholders would have won control of the board and Mr Pursell would have been ousted from the company.
The Herald was unable to reach Mr Pursell for comment.
Mr Seckold said there could be cause for a legal challenge to the vote.
bigdog
Retired many years ago
- Joined
- 19 July 2006
- Posts
- 8,124
- Reactions
- 5,473
http://business.theage.com.au/business/jervois-rebels-await-friday-ruling-20090412-a41z.html
Jervois rebels await Friday ruling
Mathew Murphy
April 12, 2009
THE future of Jervois Mining is likely to be decided on Friday with the Federal Court to rule on whether a bid by rebel shareholders to overthrow the directors and long-serving chairman Duncan Pursell has succeeded.
Trouble within the nickel miner has been brewing since last year when then independent director Richard Campbell and Jervois' largest shareholder Norm Seckold — one of few to get his money out of failed broker Opes Prime — made soundings to oust Mr Pursell, 75, from the company.
Mr Campbell said he began to question Mr Pursell's management of Jervois after he pulled out of a deal with China Railways Resources Co to advance a nickel laterite project in NSW.
Under the deal, China Railways would pay for the processing plant in return for an 80 per cent stake in the project. China Railways handed over a $US1 million ($A1.4 million) advance payment to Jervois, saying it needed more time to finalise the contract. But Mr Pursell walked away from the deal, upsetting many shareholders.
In an interview with BusinessDay, Mr Pursell said his actions were in the interest of shareholders after the Chinese state-owned company watered down its proposed investment.
"They did the same thing to Andrew Forrest that they did to us," he said. "They signed a frame agreement and when it came to the crunch for the second agreement they tried to blackmail us into doing something that wasn't fair."
Mr Campbell said China Railways was happy to come back to the table under the original terms of the contract as long as Mr Pursell was not involved.
Mr Campbell is also concerned about the continued dilution of Jervois shares of which about 2.7 billion, worth 0.7 ¢ each, are on issue.
The breakdown in negotiations with the Chinese led Mr Campbell and fellow director Melanie Leydin to call for a board meeting to consider a shareholders' request to remove Mr Pursell. Mr Pursell fired back with his own proposition to remove Mr Campbell. The stress surrounding the situation caused Ms Leydin to quit the board in December.
A extraordinary general meeting was called and shareholders notified.
Mr Campbell said that after this point Jervois engaged in a share swap with New Age Exploration whereby New Age would receive 200 million shares at a discount on the trading price.
Mr Campbell believes the move was an attempt by Mr Pursell to ensure the vote was in his favour, something on which Justice Alan Goldberg in the Federal Court has asked for further clarification.
"I also consider that Mr Campbell has raised serious issues which are not fanciful or specious in relation to the issue and allotment of shares since the beginning of February 2009, and after the extraordinary general meeting was called," he said.
The proxy form sent out to Jervois shareholders said that all undirected proxies would be voted in favour of each item of business.
At what was a fairly heated meeting of shareholders on April 2, the resolution to remove Mr Pursell and the remaining directors, excluding Mr Campbell, was narrowly defeated.
A look at the results shows discounting the proxies, 48.5 per cent of shareholders voted to depose Mr Pursell while 50.5 per cent voted for him to stay. Including 105 million proxies voted at Mr Pursell's discretion the gap is a bit wider with 46.4 per cent in favour and 53.6 per cent opposed.
But the rebels argue that the vote should have fallen the other way with the proxy form indicating that undirected votes would be voted in favour of the resolution and that therefore Mr Pursell's 22 year reign at Jervois was over.
The saga will be brought to a head on Friday when Justice Goldberg will decide who will take control of the company. However, it is yet to be seen whether it will put to rest the discontent surrounding the junior miner.
http://jervoismining.com.au
Jervois rebels await Friday ruling
Mathew Murphy
April 12, 2009
THE future of Jervois Mining is likely to be decided on Friday with the Federal Court to rule on whether a bid by rebel shareholders to overthrow the directors and long-serving chairman Duncan Pursell has succeeded.
Trouble within the nickel miner has been brewing since last year when then independent director Richard Campbell and Jervois' largest shareholder Norm Seckold — one of few to get his money out of failed broker Opes Prime — made soundings to oust Mr Pursell, 75, from the company.
Mr Campbell said he began to question Mr Pursell's management of Jervois after he pulled out of a deal with China Railways Resources Co to advance a nickel laterite project in NSW.
Under the deal, China Railways would pay for the processing plant in return for an 80 per cent stake in the project. China Railways handed over a $US1 million ($A1.4 million) advance payment to Jervois, saying it needed more time to finalise the contract. But Mr Pursell walked away from the deal, upsetting many shareholders.
In an interview with BusinessDay, Mr Pursell said his actions were in the interest of shareholders after the Chinese state-owned company watered down its proposed investment.
"They did the same thing to Andrew Forrest that they did to us," he said. "They signed a frame agreement and when it came to the crunch for the second agreement they tried to blackmail us into doing something that wasn't fair."
Mr Campbell said China Railways was happy to come back to the table under the original terms of the contract as long as Mr Pursell was not involved.
Mr Campbell is also concerned about the continued dilution of Jervois shares of which about 2.7 billion, worth 0.7 ¢ each, are on issue.
The breakdown in negotiations with the Chinese led Mr Campbell and fellow director Melanie Leydin to call for a board meeting to consider a shareholders' request to remove Mr Pursell. Mr Pursell fired back with his own proposition to remove Mr Campbell. The stress surrounding the situation caused Ms Leydin to quit the board in December.
A extraordinary general meeting was called and shareholders notified.
Mr Campbell said that after this point Jervois engaged in a share swap with New Age Exploration whereby New Age would receive 200 million shares at a discount on the trading price.
Mr Campbell believes the move was an attempt by Mr Pursell to ensure the vote was in his favour, something on which Justice Alan Goldberg in the Federal Court has asked for further clarification.
"I also consider that Mr Campbell has raised serious issues which are not fanciful or specious in relation to the issue and allotment of shares since the beginning of February 2009, and after the extraordinary general meeting was called," he said.
The proxy form sent out to Jervois shareholders said that all undirected proxies would be voted in favour of each item of business.
At what was a fairly heated meeting of shareholders on April 2, the resolution to remove Mr Pursell and the remaining directors, excluding Mr Campbell, was narrowly defeated.
A look at the results shows discounting the proxies, 48.5 per cent of shareholders voted to depose Mr Pursell while 50.5 per cent voted for him to stay. Including 105 million proxies voted at Mr Pursell's discretion the gap is a bit wider with 46.4 per cent in favour and 53.6 per cent opposed.
But the rebels argue that the vote should have fallen the other way with the proxy form indicating that undirected votes would be voted in favour of the resolution and that therefore Mr Pursell's 22 year reign at Jervois was over.
The saga will be brought to a head on Friday when Justice Goldberg will decide who will take control of the company. However, it is yet to be seen whether it will put to rest the discontent surrounding the junior miner.
http://jervoismining.com.au
- Joined
- 7 January 2008
- Posts
- 51
- Reactions
- 0
The longer it takes the court to decide, the worst it is for Mr Pursell. Too many errors were made by Duncan and it looks he might be facing serious charges..
