I recently came across this from a poster on a UK chat forum re URA whilst researching into the history of WMT's tenements. Thought i'd post it for further comment and to gain insight into other people's opinions. There appears to be suspicious ties between Ascent capital
--------------------------------------------------
Start msg:
as far as i can see, ura and western metal are two different companies in eyes of the law, but have a lot of the same origins
as i understand it so far (and this is after 30 mins googling), ura was essentially a cash fund raised by selling shares on aim
ura is an australian company and most ura directors are australian; the directors are associated with a company called ascent capital.
ascent capital was the company that recapitalised western metals.
when ura and metal signed the farm-out agreement on 3rd april, they disclosed that "WMT has announced that its directors, having a relevant interest in the securities of URA, may have a 'material personal interest' in the proposal"
and
"David Steinepreis has resigned as a director of URA with immediate effect. Similarly, Hugh Warner has resigned as a director of WMT. "
(Hugh David Warner (Director) of URA)
(Steinepreis... this name crops up a lot, most recently selling shares in WMT)
it also looks to me like WMT has been raising some cash too.
and wow, has their stock price taken off.
---
as i say, just what i picked up on a first pass. it did not give me a warm feeling, hence my 'gut reaction' that in my opinion it looked a bit like a ponzi scheme
would be quite interested to hear if anything above is incorrect or if anyone can give me reassurance that i should not be concerned about the related party transactions
enewman. exactly. there is a reason the sp looks so underpriced isn't there?
if someone like me, kicking the tyres, passes because an initial view looks a tad fishy, then how many others do the same?
so is it :
a. a genuine opportunity being undervalued because of less than transparent corporate governance?
or
b. is it an elaborate ponzi scheme, where a few individuals will make out like bandits selling stock in lots of interconnected entities while the 'story' of the uranium discovery is pumped up?
the simplest answer is a. , so i would go for that normally. but i would like to be sure b. is not the case first.
let me boil this down to a simple question:
western metals a year ago was a bankrupt australian company. ascent capital rescued it, recapitalised it, (edit: ) western have since sold more stock. given that ascent capitals management and uranium's are one and the same... why did ascent not just raise full funds in australia through western metal to explore these uranium deposits? why did uranium resources have to exist at all?
So is it....
a. a genuine opportunity being undervalued because of less than transparent corporate governance?
or
b. is it an elaborate ponzi scheme, where a few individuals will make out like bandits selling stock in lots of interconnected entities while the 'story' of the uranium discovery is pumped up?
End msg
----------------------------------------------------
AND this from another poster:
July 2005 : URA is acquiring Tanzanian licences through the purchase of Deep Yellow Tanzania ltd for the bargain price of £50000+SHARES of £300000 value. Soon after, Leon Pretorius and Hugh Warner (I assume a relation of Ross Warner of URA?) are both appointed as URA directors. Both are Deep Yellow directors, Warner is a director of Ascent Resources PLC and Ascent Capital Ltd (the company that Speculator’s article suggests rescued future partner Western Metals, and has the same management as URA).
All comments welcome.
WMT
western metals limited
