New Millennium the CON of the New millennium

>Mc
mclellan - 21 Oct'05 - 18:40 - 205 of 212
Don't be ridiculous...it would have been notified if they had. Your statements are illogical...if they don't HAVE to notify, according to you..it wouldn't matter whether anyone knew or not!
A friendly warning...what a cheek you have got! Read what you have written ..it doesn't even make sense.

Firstly the Badenhorsts hold non-notifiable holdings, so they don't have to tell anyone if they sell. They are not directors either, so any individual sell, does not have to be recorded.

However, they do fall within another category. If they were to communicate to you that they had or had not sold, then seeing as they fall within the meaning of 'insiders', you would have received information that could reasonably be described as price sensitive and inside information.

For instance I can put to you a simple analogy. If I worked as the manager of a company, working at the production end and knew that the company had suddenly produced a great many sub-standard products or had failed to complete a contract, then I would have information not freely available to the market. If I then used this information to sell the shares I held in this company, before the information became known to the market, then I would have an unfair advantage over the market as a whole. This would of course be illegal under the FSMA and section 1 of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985. The meaning of an insider is clearly explained and I suggest that you look it up.

Companies are required to submit a list of those people that hold inside knowledge and whilst the directors are normally at the top of the list, a few others would also be included, because of their knowledge of the operations.

Whilst I haven't seen the NML insider list, it is quite reasonable to assume that they are both on it. If you knew that the Badenhorsts hadn't sold, this information would be as much 'inside' as knowing that they had sold. Either way, making a statement of fact that you know indisputably that they have or have not sold, could lead others to believe that you know something that you should not know.

You've exposed yourself to scrutiny. This is not the first time you've done so in the past two weeks though. Even notready has done it, by pointing out that you know about the subcontracting and that it WILL result (as she put it). As I said, it was never mentioned in the RNS, so what makes you think it WILL happen? This is not discussion of theory, but statement of fact. So who gave you these facts?