"How can you realistically ascribe value to something which you...

"How can you realistically ascribe value to something which you currently dont have control over due to the political situation"

You don't need to "control" something for it to have a value. For example minority stakes have a value (less than 50%), just as your stake in MAK does. Not having physical possession just means it is a debt and debts usually have values, even discounted values.

"There is so much risk due to the political situation that i dont beleive anyone apart from a UCL holder would attribute value to it"

And you have the right to supplant your valuation in place of mine when it is I who own the UCL shares in question that your company wants? And for that matter, you have the right to decide on what date my investment should terminate, and therefore the closing valuation?

Your reply, and Saracen's suggest there might be a good reason to follow up Mr Drummond's behaviour with the body that enforces the rules to ensure Directors behave appropriately. The use of a zero valuation for Mehdiabad, when it plainly has a greater value is possibly fraudulent (UCL will not sell it to you for zero, so its value is more). Like the people in England who used shave bits of coins before passing them on, I am beginning to suspect some directors do the equivalent with shares by making misleading statements. The use of a $40m valuation for Wonarah is questionable too.

I'd be grateful for any help from anyone about who to write to. I have the names of the directors of Patersons Securities, but it would be useful to know which body to write to about misleading statements in ASX announcements during takeover battles. Thanks in advance.