I've had a bit of a look at the announcements and it's all highly irregular, that's obviously why there's so many questions from holders here. Minerva rang a bell as soon as I saw it, I've seen that name before but can't put my finger on it. Perhaps there was something here at MTC years ago where the name Minerva was mentioned before, I don't now.
I googled their name 'Minerva Investment Company' and the results threw up another company, listed in HK called 'Minerva Group Holding LImited' (minervagrouphk) and before it lets you onto that site a warning box flashes up which says:
"Be aware of phishing scams from external parties which may purport to have business relationships with our Group. If you are in doubt of any of the contents from external websites relating to our Group, you may contact our Group directly for clarification."
The above may be completely unrelated to the entity involved here with MTC but why aren't any solid links appearing related to the specific company name listed on the Substantial Holder Notice? I'm intrigued. The name 'Minerva' throws up a few search results so it may be a common one. I've never seen a warning box appear on a listed companies website before warning of phishing scams in such a manner and that is what is so intriguing.
It is possible I have seen the name Minerva elsewhere at some stage and it wasn't related to this Company. If something recurs I'll let you know.
On the balance of probabilities there is nothing for shareholders to worry about and it's all just a situation of poor planning and preparation, perhaps an opportunity presented itself out of the blue. I hope nobody had their arm twisted first but there is nothing to suggest anything untoward really.
There is nothing to suggest what has occurred here is in any way similar but the very first thing that I was reminded of earlier when it was mentioned that a very high premium was paid for an asset, was unrelated instances of money laundering I've read about in the past. I've seen that described with real estate being sold for above it's reasonable valuation to disguise payments for other things and also with NFT's, digital pictures of a rock repeatedly changing hands at vastly inflated prices in transactions which were apparently linked to drug dealing. Not suggesting that is what has occurred here but looking forward to how this story is explained to clarify just what the hell has happened here because I'm left scratching my head along with everyone else.
The most I can say is it is all very strange. Were some shares sold for 18c and some for 99c? What, the what what? Surely I got that wrong. Why would one get such a high premium and the other did not? No wonder clarification is required. How did they not have enough Directors to trade and needed to halt? Someone resigned or it's a requirement because of the new sub holder? Why is this process so messy that a trading halt and clarification was required? Is someone acting under duress or were they totally unprepared for some other reason for the transaction which eventuated? I hope they didn't lose all that money in a game of poker and had to sign over their shares. A low level of foresight, preparation and planning appears to have accompanied this transaction which has resulted in the need for a halt and clarification to the ASX.
Too many questions. Such a messy transaction, looking forward to the explanation.
Something like this is usually announced with an accompanying press release in my experience.
Good luck to all holders, at the end of the day conducting this business in this manner was always going to attract close scrutiny and many questions, being such an irregular transaction, so on the balance of probabilities there is nothing untoward going on, if there is it's too brazen for words.
Genuinely hope it's a situation where every single holder gets at least 99c for their shares or substantially more. Gold is very hot right now so it could easily be an offer too good to refuse.
(20min delay)