TSK - TASK Group Holdings

[it-guy]

First rule of sales is to create urgency

Robbo - where are the insider share sale notifications?

https://www.nzx.com/companies/VML/announcements/260144

[robbo24]

First rule of sales is to create urgency

Robbo - where are the insider share sale notifications?

https://www.nzx.com/companies/VML/announcements/260144

Sorry I'm not sure I know what you mean by that?

[it-guy]

Sorry I'm not sure I know what you mean by that?

the link was from the nzx here they are again
https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/207266.pdf
https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/207305.pdf
https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/207324.pdf


three major insiders declaring increased ownership of VMOB as required by NZX.

Mike Corden 4.3-> 8.1 mil
Scott Bradley 415 -> 432 mil
Phil Norman 50 -> 78 mil

Collectively an increase of 48 million shares, who exactly is doing all the "selling you refer to", they have to be reported sales on the NXZ even if after hours? and the insiders will under general ongoing disclosure have to declare the sales.

Unless you know a super sneaky selling method? please tell us and the regulators how they are doing so?

[it-guy]

Relevant interest
Both the D&O and SSH disclosure requirements refer to ‘relevant interest’. The meaning of ‘relevant
interest’ is set out in sections 5 – 5B of the Act and includes registered ownership, beneficial
ownership and the power to exercise control over a security.
Method of Disclosure
Both D&O and SSH disclosure notices must be provided to NZX for release to the market, by using
MAP or by emailing NZX at announce@nzx.com. Announcements are published under the public
issuer’s listing code between 8.30am and 5.30 pm on trading days.
SSH disclosures must be sent to NZX in both PDF and Word format. Documents which are illegible,
for example due to very small print, or cannot be published in a legible format, will not be released
by NZX.
Standard template forms for disclosure can be downloaded from the MAP website,
https://map.nzx.com/static/forms.
Penalties
The potential consequence of failing to comply with either the D&O or SSH disclosure obligations is a
fine on summary conviction of up to $30,000, as well as civil remedies that can include forfeiture of
shareholdings or removal of voting rights.
Directors’ & Officers’ Disclosure
Directors and officers of public issuers have statutory disclosure obligations when they hold or
transact in securities of the public issuer of which they are a director or officer.
The basic D&O disclosure requirements are:
 directors and officers must disclose relevant interests and dealings in relevant interests,
within five trading days of becoming a director or officer or transacting in securities
 a director or officer has up to 30 days to disclose an acquisition or disposal of a relevant
interest that was provided under a share top-up plan, a dividend reinvestment scheme, or
an employee share scheme
 disclosure must be made to NZX and recorded in the interests register of the issuer
 the obligation to disclose continues for six months after ceasing to be a director or officer.
Sections 19T – 19Y of the Act contain the full disclosure requirements and should be read in
conjunction with:
 the Securities Markets (Disclosure of Relevant Interests by Directors and Officers)
Regulations 2003 (the D&O Regulations) which provide the framework on how disclosures
must be made
 the Securities Markets Act (Disclosure of Relevant Interests by Directors and Officers)
Exemption Notice 2004, which provides for certain exemptions or variations from the
regime, for example by allowing an extended period of time (30 days) in relation to the disclosure of relevant interests obtained via share top-up plans, dividend reinvestment
schemes and employee share schemes.

[robbo24]

who exactly is doing all the "selling you refer to"

You'll have to refer me to the "selling [I] refer to" because I genuinely do not know what you are talking about?

[it-guy]

Directors selling shares to themselves at 1 cent a pop, dancing a merry-ho jig about a contract they knew about, then following up with a further capital raising at a 60% premium a month or two later isn't normal startup/cash burn behaviour. VML burns cash and is relatively low on money, I get it, but selling cheap shares to yourself with insider information then trying to hock off the same deal to others at a 60% premium down the track is a bit... A bit... A bit fresh, isn't it?

You mention XRO, just imagine if the XRO directors did that. There would be blood in the streets.

Ah selling new shares not there own... mmm so you are just pissed you cant buy shares on the private placements, hell just ask they will sell you some you just have to want enough....

and I would go easy on the insider info stuff FMA have looked at this and I don't see notice of a prosecution. does it look dogey ... yes. can anyone prove it, probably not...

sure these guys get paid salaries and if the runway runs out they are out of a job... but they seem happy to stump up cash right now, I wonder why? what do they know as insiders, that makes them want more shares?? insiders buying more shares is one of the best indicators for retail to follow and buy a stock and there is NO disclosures (as required by LAW) that they (insiders) are selling ANY OF THEM YET.

the pump is just beginning - the insiders are still buying stock.

[robbo24]

and I would go easy on the insider info stuff FMA have looked at this and I don't see notice of a prosecution. does it look dogey ... yes. can anyone prove it, probably not...

Thanks for your fine legal analysis. They admitted it constitutes insider trading but for a short term exemption. Make hay while the sun shines, as they say.

http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthr...l=1#post528166

Heads they win, tails you lose as Balance would say.

[Absolute144]

Directors selling shares to themselves at 1 cent a pop, dancing a merry-ho jig about a contract they knew about, then following up with a further capital raising at a 60% premium a month or two later isn't normal startup/cash burn behaviour. VML burns cash and is relatively low on money, I get it, but selling cheap shares to yourself with insider information then trying to hock off the same deal to others at a 60% premium down the track is a bit... A bit... A bit fresh, isn't it?

You mention XRO, just imagine if the XRO directors did that. There would be blood in the streets.

Robbo, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but those are some pretty big accusations. Ill point out that the offer was open to "eligible persons" in NZ and "sophisticated investors" in Australia (https://www.nzx.com/companies/VML/announcements/258789). Its certainly cheaper to make such an offer. Most Securities Act requirements that apply when securities are offered to the public will not apply if the only persons who are eligible to invest, and do invest, under an offer are 'eligible persons'. No prospectus or investment statement is required for such an offer - which is why it is cheaper faster and more risk for the investor - No prospectus means just that. No indications , no promises.

At the time the price was set, - VMOB was trading in the range .009 -.011 for quite a prolonged period. The shares were not really cheap. They were at a slight discount (9.9 %) to market rate which is standard practice. The fact that that the share price was trading so low and they discount to the next available price point. For example, NTL did a capital raise (Trading at .010 - discounted to .008) (thats 20% discount) . Only difference, they produced a prospectus and offered to all NZ shareholders (and possible Aus ones too). So in "HINDSIGHT" the may appear cheap now. But everyone who plays the sharemarket wishes they had "hindsight" before they made that particular trade....

VMOB have made no secret of cash burn, the need to raise funds, the pursuit of new customers etc, expected time to profitability. People just have to go back an read the seemingly boring announcements.

[robbo24]

Robbo, I appreciate your constructive criticism, but those are some pretty big accusations. Ill point out that the offer was open to "eligible persons" in NZ and "sophisticated investors" in Australia (https://www.nzx.com/companies/VML/announcements/258789). Its certainly cheaper to make such an offer. Most Securities Act requirements that apply when securities are offered to the public will not apply if the only persons who are eligible to invest, and do invest, under an offer are 'eligible persons'. No prospectus or investment statement is required for such an offer - which is why it is cheaper faster and more risk for the investor - No prospectus means just that. No indications , no promises.

At the time the price was set, - VMOB was trading in the range .009 -.011 for quite a prolonged period. The shares were not really cheap. They were at a slight discount (9.9 %) to market rate which is standard practice. The fact that that the share price was trading so low and they discount to the next available price point. For example, NTL did a capital raise (Trading at .010 - discounted to .008) (thats 20% discount) . Only difference, they produced a prospectus and offered to all NZ shareholders (and possible Aus ones too). So in "HINDSIGHT" the may appear cheap now. But everyone who plays the sharemarket wishes they had "hindsight" before they made that particular trade....

VMOB have made no secret of cash burn, the need to raise funds, the pursuit of new customers etc, expected time to profitability. People just have to go back an read the seemingly boring announcements.

The part of the Securities Act you refer to is about offers to the public. Those parts are irrelevant to what I am talking about. That is, people with insider information whether they are sophisticated or not. Otherwise you would be suggesting its ok for insiders to trade so as long as they are sophisticated investors. I am familiar with the legislation and regulations. VML openly said in their announcement that they made use of a section that temporarily allows insiders to trade if by way of placement. The section temporarily exempts them from the prohibition on insider trading. That means the conduct is still insider trading but through that exemption it is not illegal - until next year.

So, in summary they placed themselves bottom barrel 1 cent shares when as directors they knew or ought to have known about the big contract announcement. Now they want you to quack quack quack 3 months later at a 60% premium.

Insider trading, yes. Illegal in the circumstances, no. Right thing to do to give the market confidence in your NZAX listed company claiming a want for "institutionalisation"? No no no no no no I am afraid not, not in my opinion.

[it-guy]

give the market confidence in your NZAX listed company

Insto likes to see insiders putting their own money on the line... so yes. If Insto refuse to pay 1.6c level and want close to the 1c level then you will be right, if Insto pay up 1.6c you are wrong. Place your bets....