Corrected & Updated Version: Tim Horlick – Questions on share dealing, Pathfinder and Grandover

Comments

1. ---

   outspan

   19 January 2014, 13:41

   Good work, Tom. Such telling questions are long overdue but surely the answer of “No” to your last question means they cannot categorically state that they knew nothing and is therefore an admission?

2. ---

   Drunken Sailor

   12 August 2014, 13:00

   Tom,
   Leaving aside the pot calling the kettle black issue of your former Gold fund also selling out at a profit before the whole thing collapsed – good luck to you I say, and to Tim Horlick. You both managed to come away with a profit but as neither of you were responsible for what actually happened, there is no need beat each other up over it. As you said yourself “As such your only ethical duty as regards your investments is to make as much money as possible. If you then want to go give that money to cancer charities, to save the plane or just to spend it on coke and hookers that is your call. And the sad fact is that “unethical” stocks such as BAT Industries (BATS) can be very good investments”. It was also nearly 3 years ago and I only bring it up because you clearly still have an interest from the other side of the fence now you have changed teams.

   Surely the issue with PFP was the original reverse of IM into it that created a company that started out with a market cap of £38,446,809 at the placing price and then at one time traded at a Market cap of over £50m, but had only paid $100k for an option to buy shares in the company that held the actual licence with another $9.9m outstanding, which gave the opportunity for what did happen to happen. Surely there was a failure in due diligence here that did not close all the loop holes properly or a misrepresentation by IM minerals (why is it misrepresentation is a word that gets used so much by so many people when they talk about TEB?). The admission document clearly stated “IM Minerals holds an extraction licence for a potential titanium dioxide ore resource in Mozambique (“Naburi Licence”), as well as an exploration licence over land nearby the Naburi Licence, also believed to contain a potential titanium dioxide ore resource (“Moebase Licence”).” And that does not appear to be the case, otherwise Veloso would not have been able to do what he did. Ie if IM were actually named as the licence holder, how could Veloso put it into another company?

   I am not defending the way Veloso went about this and not trying to pre judge the outcome of the legal process that is still dragging on in Mozambique. But if we are going to draw lessons, could one of them be that people who deal with robbing sheisters are most probably robbing sheisters themselves and nobody should be too surprised went one of them does the dirty on the other. The other lesson clearly is: if you do get invested with people like this then grab any profit and get out as quick as you can.

   Tim Baldwin is involved in another potential admission to AIM – Athabasca Resources. The only named director of Athabasca is Julian Hamilton Barns of Minmet scandal fame. There are no empty threats of libel over this one, I even pointed out how the TXO annual report had misrepresented the situation with Athabasca at the TXO AGM, so one for you to look out for if anything does start to happen – TXO put out an RNS nearly 2 months ago saying “that its investee company, Athabasca Resources Limited (“ARL”), has appointed advisers for its proposed AIM Admission, which is planned for the end of September 2014.” So far there has been no obvious sign of anything actually happening.

3. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   12 August 2014, 13:28

   Drunken

   You are acting like a bit of a tosser with the pots & kettles bit here.

   I had no inside knowdlege and sold shares at a profit. Tim knew a bit more than me.

   Really I can be attacked for a lot in life am am about a zillion times a day but on this… you are yanking my chain.

   T.

4. ---

   Drunken Sailor

   12 August 2014, 13:47

   Tom,

   I was not accusing you of having inside knowledge. The point I was making was the point about lack of due diligence / misrepresentation and I was not accusing you of that either. You seem to be overly sensitive. Everyone knows you have a past and it is that past that makes you as well informed as you are. It takes a lot of courage to change teams as you have and I applaud you for it.

5. ---

   wildrides

   12 August 2014, 14:09

   What a Horlicks …….. they are obviously lying . May karma get them and they then rot in hell . What lying bar stewards . Bare faced lying bar stewards. I hope the General gets Ebola , and soon . Nothing good ever, ever came out of Moz . The next door mine is run by a a load of greedy corporate pigs as well .

6. ---

   Drunken Sailor

   12 August 2014, 17:20

   wildrides,

   If you became aware that something very bad was going to happen to a company in which you had a large holding and the rest of the market was not aware, would you sell your holding and deny knowing or would you decide as you had inside knowledge you really ought to sit there and lose a fortune?

   They are all as bad as each other in this as far as I can see, Some were fortunate to get out early, some got caught out. But as usual the private investors who picked up the shares with dreams of owning a piece of a £500m project, when it appears IM Minerals (a company founded by Tim Baldwin on 1 Apr 2005 and had him as a director until 21 Aug 2013) never actually held the licence as stated in the Pathfinder Admission doc that went with the reverse takeover, that got burned the most unfairly.

   I think you should direct your anger and scorn a little closer to home.

7. ---

   wildrides

   12 August 2014, 23:16

   Drunken,
   Cant get much closer than the General .
   I see your another vacuum brained know it all pretending to be clever . The English High Court was clear enough for me .

8. ---

   Drunken Sailor

   13 August 2014, 12:59

   wildrides,

   You ducked the question and instead answered a completely different one..

   The question was:

   If you became aware that something very bad was going to happen to a company in which you had a large holding and the rest of the market was not aware, would you sell your holding and deny knowing or would you decide as you had inside knowledge you really ought to sit there and lose a fortune?

   When something goes horribly wrong and a lot of people lose a lot of money, there is a natural tendency to accuse those who did not lose or may have made money of some form of wrong doing.

   There is no suggestion that Horlick engineered the situation or that he tried to maximise his gain by shorting before the news came out. He just sold out before the whole thing collapsed. There is no way to prove that he had inside knowledge of what the General was about to do, but he was aware of the rift in the PFP board. Tom also made money on the deal, but that was a quick in and out before all this blew up – a wise move nothing more nothing less.

   The issue I am highlighting is the admissions prospectus for PFP said IM Minerals held the licence. To hold the licence you need to be named as the holder on the licence as issued. Had this been the case then there could be no argument over who held the licence and the General could not have done what he did. I am not saying the General was right to do what he did and as Toms article says the courts will decide. As it is a Mozambique licence issued by the Mozambique government it will be for the Mozambique courts to decide. Tom makes the point in his article that Grandover’s claim in their prospectus that they held the licence was inaccurate. Thus by the same token the PFP prospectus is also inaccurate.

   I do not know if the General’s claim that all IM / PFP had done was pay a $100k option fee and had not paid the remaining $9.9m is true. But if it is, then IM was effectively reversed into a £38M market cap company only having assets worth $100k. Tom levels similar accusations at QPP with regard to over paying for assets that are effectively worth a tiny fraction of what is being paid. I simply point out the similarity and suggest that the bigger picture of the PFP situation should be examined. Now is probably not the right time to do that with the court decision still outstanding.

   As far as I can see none of the characters on the boards of the various companies involved are particularly savoury. Thus Tom’s wisdom in doing a quick in and out is sound and potentially therefore a lesson to learn with regard to investing in Cesspit companies. Was Tim Horlick equally wise, was he just lucky or did he have specific inside knowledge – there is no way to prove it either way. Answer my question to see if you think what he may have done is so very wrong compared to the wrong doing elsewhere in this shambles.

9. ---

   wildrides

   13 August 2014, 14:46

   Yep …… he was wrong . Insider dealing . His business relationships made him an insider . Clear as spring water. And his answers to Toms questions underline that .

   The court has decided in favour of Pathfinder . All the Moz court is doing is deciding if it will uphold the English court decision and then take enforcement action or not , as the case may be .

10. ---

    Drunken Sailor

    13 August 2014, 16:23

    You still have not answered the question:

    If you became aware that something very bad was going to happen to a company in which you had a large holding and the rest of the market was not aware, would you sell your holding and deny knowing or would you decide as you had inside knowledge you really ought to sit there and lose a fortune?

    The other point, which you ignore, stands regardless of the outcome of court deliberations.